Nestucca River Native Steelhead Broodstock Program Update and plea for help!

[Gone Fishin]

I posted this on my guide report page, but thought it should be here as well:

October 19th the ODFW Commisioners are meeting in the afternoon in Seaside. One of the agenda items is the Nestucca River Native Steelhead Broodstock Program.
You can bet my good friend Les Helgeson who has been against this project since the beginning, and his "gang" from Oregon Trout and others will be there to voice opposition to this program.

I cannot attend as I will be working that afternoon, but I can and will write to the commision to urge them to go forward with this program. And if you value Native Steelhead Broodstock programs I urge you to do the same.

Letters do count! We need all the support we can get, you don't have to write anything long and fancy, just a note to let them know that you would like to see this project put into motion will do.

I thank you in advance for your letters.

Please write to:

ODFW
2501 SW First Ave.
Portland, OR 97207
Attn: Commisioners

-Marty


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posts: 524 | From: Tillamook, Oregon USA | Registered: Apr 2000 | IP: Logged

[ 10-03-2001: Message edited by: Gone Fishin ]

[Point-of-Sale Clerk]

Gone Fishin

Thank you for the information. You can trust that I will put it to good use.
I have seen some of Mr. Helgeson’s objections to the Native Broodstock Program and was wondering if you could explain in your words what benefits a native broodstock would bring to the Nestucca? Further, besides Les and Oregon Trout, whom else do you believe will voice opposition?

*** Clerk

[Bait O' Eggs]

Marty,
I am interested in why somebody would be against this program? From everything I have heard it seems to be the latest greatest mangement technique we have.

I can see a local inbred living along the river not wanting any change, but when Oregon Trout wants to stand in the way I assume they must have an arguement of some sort, good or bad. Can you shed some light on this for us?

[Gone Fishin]

***,

In a perfect world we would not need hatchery raised fish. But I do believe if we are going to harvest fish, then the hatchery raised fish are very much needed.
When hatchery steelhead were started, most of the stock now used on Oregon rivers was taken from the Alsea River.

Over the years, these fish have shown that they are a genetically inferior species to the system. They come in early ready to spawn and they all come at once. The size of the fish has also gotten smaller over the years and years of inbreeding.

Now I'm not a biologist, or a person that knows a great deal, I'm just a dumb fishing guide, but I do have some common sense.
And it only makes sense to me to take the fish that are native to the particular stream to start your hatchery program. I believe this should have been done from the begining of all the state hatcheries.

The projects that have started this way (using native broodstock) have shown that they are extremely successful. You get a better return rate, bigger-healthier fish, and a run timming that is spread out for several months.

This project was to be started last year, but due to Mr. Helgeson's objections it was put on hold. One of the points that Mr. Helgeson made was that monitoring was needed to see if there were any fish in the Nestucca System beacause he was concerned about taking 60 pairs of fish might jeapordize the run, I personally tried to convince Mr. Helgeson that there were plenty of fish in the river to no avail.

Monitoring was put in place this past season, and the educated experts came up with a figure of between 7500 and 10000 fish in the Native run. I think that the 120 fish needed for broodstock purposes won't harm the run.

Another big issue is the stray rates, if these hatchery-raised fish spawn with the wild fish it will further degrade the wild component. Another common sense issue for me! If a genetically native fish that is hatchery-raised spawns in the wild with another native fish, big deal! How is that going to harm the run? It's the same fish.

As to who else might be there to support Mr. Helgeson, I don't know or really care. The only thing that matters to me is what is good for the Nestucca River. And that to me is this broodstock program. I have fished on the Nestucca for over 30 years and have spent a lot of time on it's waters. I've seen guys like Helgeson move into the area and think they own the river. Truth is we all own all the rivers and this one has a special place in my heart and I'll do what I deem necessary to help it in any way I can.

[Gone Fishin]

Roy,

I am not really sure except possibly for the fact that they do not want hatchery fish anywhere and do not want to see native fish turned into hatchery raised fish.

Heck, if were up to Oregon Trout we wouldn't be fishing anywhere where there are native fish!

If it has anything to do with native fish, they'll be involved.

[Pete]

There are certainly good arguments on both sides of this issue. But even Bill Bakke, Director of the Native Fish Society, said ["Native Fish Society Report", Summer, 2001, Vol. 3. No. 2] using native brood stock "is certainly a better hatchery policy than importing non-native fish to boos harvest or using broodstock that has been domesticated over many generations."

Wild spawning native fish are clearly better adapted to their river than domesticated hatchery broodstock. From my reading, there are some reasons for concern in using native brood stock, but they all seem to be adressable through hatchery management practices and monitoring. The first concern is that smolts bred in a hatchery from native stock are influenced by the hatchery ... the tanks, the feed, the schedules, the breed timing, the release timing ... all influence the survivability and characteristics of the fish and their influence on stream bred native fish. Research at Hood River indicates that hatchery reared native stocks quicky diverge from their wild counterparts. Research has not yet shown if these are permanent, genetic differences. It seems to me that this research should be completed before making a big commitment to native broodstock programs ... but it isn't a reason not to move in that direction. It certainly seems that if hatchery practices are modified to breed native stocks over a period of time, instead of en masse, and temporal diversity is maintained throughout the hatchery population and new brood is introduced regularly, this approach can substantially offset any problems identified in past studies.

Another concern is the lack of adequate monitoring. The solution to that is clear; develop and maintain an adequate monitoring program to ensure that wild, native fish are not adversely impacted. This will require the ODFW North Coast District to produce Basin Management Plans, as required by law as of 1992. These plans must collect and monitor long term data on wild populations. It looks like ODFW really dropped the ball here ... if they had been doing what was required, there would be no reason not to proceed with the Native Broodstock Program. But, again, there's no reason not to do it now, and no reason it should hinder the progress of the program.

[Point-of-Sale Clerk]

Gone Fishin…

Thank you for your response; I do appreciate you taking the time to answer my questions. First, there are two words that I believe never should belong in the same sentence, Dumb and Fishing. Anyone associated with sport fishing is smart enough to know what is truly important. Second, My question regarding who else would voice opposition was to see if my name would appear.

I have been opposed to the native winter steelhead program on the Nestucca for a very long time. Not for the same reasons Les is but just as adamant. Although native broodstocks may seem to be the magic program that common sense dictates, the same logic was used for the creation of the existing hatchery programs that we have now that are being scraped for the broodstock version. 30 years ago someone else said we should use Alsea stock, its only common sense. Will someone else say 30 years from now why did they use a brood stock program in this way? What were they thinking?

When it comes to hatcheries common sense does not always apply. The reason Alsea stock was used was because more smolts could be raised in the same size pens than using native stock. That would mean that a switch now to native will reduce the overall number of smolts released, “less fish”. Will they survive better? Probably not, hatchery rearing is more than likely what gives the fish poor survival skills, although when they stray they will be more disease resistant. Will natives stray more? Les thinks so, I am not so sure. We will see.

The real push for the broodstock program was in the change of the run timing. The current hatchery run returns on average from Dec to Jan. The natives return from Jan to Apr. Even though less fish will be created using the new stock it was the timing change that the Guides wanted so trips could be booked later in the season. Not the most noble of reasons… (please don’t get mad)

My other concern was taking or “mining” this depressed native stock for consumptive use. In the mid 90’s the estimated size of the native run was as low as 300 (that’s three hundred) returning adults. Current estimates have put the population at around 1000 (that’s one thousand) The problem as mentioned by Pete was the lack of monitoring. The Nestucca was the first river to have a brood stock program that had no method of counting the number of returning adult natives (no obstacle to count the fish as they go over) Now ODFW has forked out the dough to do what they were supposed to be doing all along, keeping track of the native population. You can thank Les for that. On other BB’s I would have been very discourteous regarding your population numbers, as this is a more kinder and gentler community I would ask that you rethink those numbers. At ten thousand returning adult natives ODFW would institute a consumptive harvest of natives.
I know it is not a perfect world, having dealt with ODFW for many years has taught me that. But doing what is best for the river and for the native fish is what is going to be the best thing to do for ALL fishermen in the long run.
You are not the only person who holds a special place in his heart for the Nestucca…


Pete, that was a great post

*** Clerk

[Gone Fishin]

First of all, I'm not going to debate this isuue here I don't have the time. I know I won't change your mind. As you won't change mine. Is your name John?

I simply put up some information, if you support this program write a letter.

As for the numbers, well like I said, I'm just a dumb fishing guide who ends up hooking almost all the steelhead in the river according to whose numbers you want to believe...Man, I didn't really think I was that good of fisherman! And I know I'm not!

But, according to
ASSESMENT OF THE STATUS OF NESTUCCA RIVER WINTER STEELHEAD by Gary Susac and Steve Jacobs, Coastal Salmonid Iventory Project, ODFW August 21, 2001 it states on page 3;

"We implemented a random sampling design to estimate the abundance of steelhead redds in the Nestucca River Basin"...."We estimate a total of 7,750 winter steelhead redds for the Nestucca River Basin."

"Even though this study was designed to estimate the number of redds in the Nestucca Basin it is possible to approximate the number of adults responsible for the estimated redd deposition"..."The resulting overall population estimate was 10,152 +/- 3,308 adults."

Of course, I don't believe everything I read, I think the number is actually higher than that!

As for the guides selfish reasons for wanting to extend the run, I won't get mad...I think that's funny! I fish for the natives all season long and love the catch-and-release fishery. I have enough clients that appreciate this fishery to keep me employed during that time of year as well!

If I was thinking only of me, I wouldn't want that program, just think of the more people it will put on the water in search of a keeper! I'd much rather have the place to myself! (kinda like Les and a few others that have homes along the bank who seem to think nobody but them should be there)

So we can argue all you want, we can debate it till whenever, I'm doing what I think is right. I support the program, and I'll continue to do so.

Oop's! I am debating the issue...

PLEASE WRITE!

Thanks, -Marty

[ 10-01-2001: Message edited by: Gone Fishin ]

[Point-of-Sale Clerk]

Gone Fishin…

OK, ok lets no go off on a rant. You did very nice in not flaming in your first response but wait for a reply, that is how this is played… ok?

I went back and looked at the historical numbers that I have and looked at the most recent data at ODFW (ftp://ftp.dfw.state.or.us/pub/Susac/2001/redd%20health%20goals%2001.doc) and still believe your numbers to be high. The numbers you quoted could be the total number of redds observed over several years in ALL coastal rivers studied by the author. If the number of wild winter steelhead were 10,000 I would be the first to celebrate.

You may call me “john” or you can call me “outhouse” what ever you prefer, either would not be what ODFW calls me and decorum prevents me from repeating that type of language…

You are right about the Nestucca being able to have a catch and release fishery. Many fishermen I know love to fish for the nate’s on the Nestucca just to let them go. Hooking 6 to 10 wild fish a day is better than catching and taking home one hatchery fish.

Birdhunter…

Very excellent post, I agree, lets not domesticate this or any stock. But unfortunately there are no plans to make changes in this hatchery before the use off broodstock begins.

As to the reasons why this program was began. I agree that when someone makes an insinuation as I have that 99 times out of a hundred the person making the insinuation is grossly uninformed. Usually I try not to delve into the reasons why a decision was made but merely look at its outcome. However, I have been watching this from the get go and have seen some very disturbing happenings.

The funding for the monitoring does come from OWHF, but the original funding for upgrades to the Cedar Creek Hatchery was from the ODFW A&E board. I believe the argument has been that the original proposal came from “guide” interests and was put forth to the A&E board by someone who was also affiliated with the local guides. I do not wish to drown you with all pertinent info but I will say that I was concerned enough at the time to go to a ODFW Commission Meeting and interrogate two of the A&E board members in the hall outside. They confirmed that the sole advantage to changing only 50,000 of the 200,000 to 300,000 smolts to a brood stock was merely to extend the run timing to include a segment of harvestable fish. If it was for genetic reasons then why not convert the entire winter steelhead stock to native. It appeared that someone wanted to have their cake and eat it too.
Other negative impacts from broodstock and hatchery interaction include non-compliance to Matrix protocols from wild fish failing to ripen in accordance with hatchery scheduling. Hatcheries quickly creating new populations that are separated by phenotypic characteristics and then allowing higher stray rates because of the same original stock.

It seems we all agree that what we are doing now is wrong and we are all looking for better. Each and every person on all sides of this debate has something to contribute. For many years only one voice decided the course of our hatchery management, ODFW. That did not turn out so well. We need to look to things we agree on and work on the things we don’t. We all want what is best for the fish and for the river, and in the long run that will be what is best for us all…

*** Clerk

[Lund]

sure hope this program gets run like the siletz or coquille, and NOT like wilson...

wilson steelhead are caught by anglers and held in a pond in the lower wilson. they get transported to trask where they are spawned and reared in trask holding ponds. yes all those wilson fish get imprinted with trask water. then all the adults that get spawned are thrown back into the TRASK!, to return to ocean. once the smolts get big enough they get released into the wilson. if these fish are'nt being raised wrong, then why do people have better days in feb, and march on the trask than wilson. these are clipped fish being caught in the trask in march, and lots of them. come on guys lets start with wilson water and stay with wilson water, period. they want to raise these nestucca brood stock fish on the alsea or three rivers hachery. if you support this you're nuts.

[Gone Fishin]

***,

Before you go off on calling me ranting and not playing the game fair, I want you to know there is no rant involved. I simply am addressing your specific comments. The name John was in referance to John Bracke, a part-time weekend resident on the Nestucca River that has supported Les in the past. I think you read something else into it.

Back to the numbers issue again, that information from the study quoted in my above post was from the 2000-2001 NESTUCCA RIVER. If you can make statements like:
"Hooking 6 to 10 wild fish a day is better than catching and taking home one hatchery fish." How many fish do you think are in a system when you are hooking 6-10 fish in a day? I think maybe you should re-think the numbers.

As for playing the game fair, you ask for my own words and then give me yours. Did I ask for your thoughts on the subject? Did you ask for mine so you could try to start a fight? Whatever the reason the game is over.

As to you lund,

You should do more research before you post.
You have some mis-information there.
And yes, I'm nuts.
I support the Nestucca Broodstock Program as well as the Wilson program for that matter.

Oops, looks like I'm ranting!
Game Over

[ 10-01-2001: Message edited by: Gone Fishin ]

[Hookset]

Marty, Thanks for the update and address. I'll send a letter in support and encourage others to do the same. The wild broodstock program has been a great success story which in turn benefits all fisherman.

I wish more fisherman and people would support the program to expand on other rivers.

Thanks Marty,

Gregg

[Salmonator]

I'll send a letter Marty and if you need a hand anywhere else let me know. Heck, maybe I can even catch a few fish for the pond if you show me a few of your secret holes images/icons/grin.gif I like what they have going on the Siletz and I think that just getting rid of Alsea fish alone will help any river.

[Deleted User]

There is no one more concerned with the well being of the Nestucca River than Marty Peterson! To imply that his intentions concerning the broodstock program are for financial gain is not only insulting to his integrity as a guide but also the cleints that have fished with him.
I see the wild broodstock program as the best and maybe last chance to improve the bureaucratic hatchery practices that have lead to the decline of not only wild fish runs but the over-all quality of the hatchery runs too. It's like Marty said in a perfect world we would have no need of this type of program but obviously it's not a perfect world. We need,at this time and place,hatcheries. Why not strive for the best we can get? Thanks Marty for being a friend of the river!
Stew

[birdhunter]

Stewed?

Nice. images/icons/cool.gif

[Point-of-Sale Clerk]

Gone fishin

The “john” comment was an attempt at humor, I see now that humor was unable to penetrate an aura of raised dander.

The “Hooking 6 to 10 wild fish a day is better than catching and taking home one hatchery fish” was not a description of what is occurring today but an out loud prayer of what I would like to see in the future for the Nestucca.

As for you playing the game fair, I do not remember saying it was a game? Perhaps it was a Freudian slip on my part or perhaps it was one on yours. It seems you are upset because you were persuaded into explaining your position regarding the Nestucca Broodstock Program. I think your willingness to enter into a discussion like this does you and your point of view credit. I realize this was an unconventional way to test your knowledge and understanding but I always do things a little different. You may be correct that the time for this program has come. Yet you must also realize that this program is not without risks to the long-term health of the native steelhead. It is the ability to discuss plainly the possible shortcomings of a new program like this I find to be most useful. Having the ability to force through a program at ODFW does not make a program right does it?

As to me wanting to pick a fight with you (figuratively), that truly was not my intention. It is not difficult to see what hot buttons to press on you to get an angry response and have tried to avoid them. If it appears that I have offended any particular group that was not my intent. All of us in the Sports Fishing Industry must be willing to defend reasonably our position as well as being ambassadors. We should all listen more and shout less. Taking the moral high ground will be the best place to make a stand. The two sides of this issue are now so dielectrically opposed and have taken such extreme positions on each side that you cannot see the rest of us trying to come to an understanding in the middle.

When this broodstock program was first introduced everything around it was hasty and haphazard, ODFW did not even have any Administrative rules in place for the collection of broodstock, yet they had been collecting them at other rivers for years. It is now one year later and who knows maybe it will fly and maybe it won’t

One last question just for thought.
What would you say if it was discovered 30 years from now all the hard work you did to help the Nestucca turned out to be the exact wrong thing to do? Does that make your effort any less worthy if you are wrong?

Thank you for entering into this discussion.

*** Clerk

[birdhunter]

I'll debate it.

Interesting points *** Clerk. I'd like to address a few of them if I may.

Straying: Will the new brood-stock hatchery fish stray more than wild fish? Probably yes, but not nearly as much as the Alsea strain hatchery fish already do.

Broodstock: You argue, correctly I might add, that current hatchery rearing practices give the smolts poor survival skills. We have here though, an opportunity to completely revamp a hatchery program. I think it would be irresponsible to change the fish and not change the way they are raised. I'm talking about earlier releases, alternating feeding times and locations, pens w/ debris and flow, in essence a more realistic stream setting than concrete holding ponds create. Will this mean fewer smolts produced? Yes. But it will also mean much higher survivorship and return percentages. Let's not domesticate our new broodstock.

On many rivers we seem to be able to dump large numbers of smolts in and seperate them from the wild fish when they return. Because the Nestucca is barrier-free, this kind of "management" is impossible. Using native broodstock will be the only way to have a consumptive fishery on the Nestucca in the years to come. With that said, here are my concerns.

Run timing: Current hatchery run returns on average from Dec to Jan. The natives return from Jan to Apr. Reasons for this seperation of run timing has to do with hatcheries using the earliest returning fish for breeding purposes. Years of this have built upon each other until you have a characteristically early hatchery run. This means wild fish and hatchery fish are mostly seperated during their migration upriver. This also means that the recreational fishery targeting hatchery fish, has a minimal impact on wild fish. That is to say, minimal in comparison to what would happen w/ the broodstock program. Instituting the brood stock program would change the run timing of the hatchery component on the river. It would mean that wild and hatchery fish return at the same time. This also means there will be more wild fish caught incidentally by anglers in pursuit of hatchery fish. I can almost assure you that this will mean a change in regulations. Probably the loss of bait in the winter and there is always the murmur of barbless. Just something to keep in mind. I'm in favor of the broodstock program for the Nestucca and think the new regs would be justified, but you should all be aware of some of the likely outcomes.

"The real push for the broodstock program was in the change of the run timing....the Guides wanted (it) so trips could be booked later in the season. Not the most noble of reasons… (please don’t get mad)" - *** Clerk

I hardly think that the reason guides and other concerned fishermen wanted to institute a broodstock program is for sheer greed. I'd be insulted even if you only insinuated it, but you flat out say it. For shame. I don't know anyone who has a bigger stake on the health of a river than those who are dependant upon it for their livelihood.

Maybe, people are seeing that our current hatchery programs aren't sustainable and are trying to remedy the situation. Maybe, guides and other fishermen have a deep found respect for wild fish and want to help them while still providing a recreational fishery. Maybe people are interested in what is good for the Nestucca and as long as we are going to have hatchery fish, they will need to be broodstock. Maybe.

I think you owe some people here an apology.

[Gone Fishin]

Oh yeah, ***,

The ODFW didn't fund the monitoring this past season. It was a grant from the Oregon Wildlife Heritage Foundation. As a matter of fact, they're footing most of the bill for the Wilson and Nestucca Broodstock Programs as well. Let's see... Proven Performance, Better for the fishery, saving taxpayer dollars. Yep, I support the project.

[Gone Fishin]

Thank you for the debate ***. The "game" came from you stating I was not playing fair. As to the "hot buttons" I'm not hot, it's just the way I feel.

Having stated my point of view is a good thing yes, but not here in the middle of my busiest season of the year, I really don't have the time. But, I will make time for this program.

If you and your friends that fish the Nestucca aren't hooking 6-10 natives a day, what can I say...I think you need to book a trip with me.

To answer your last question, I'm doing what I think is right as are you. If in 30 years I find that all my efforts were for not, I'd be sad, but I would also have given it my best shot on what I felt was the right thing to do with the information that I have.

We're playing with mother nature here, man actually has no place messing with it, but we still do. I do what I think is right as do you.

No hard feelings ***, I'm not mad or harbor any ill will toward you, lifes too short for that.

I'll continue to support the project.

[Gone Fishin]

Roy, Birdhunter, Gregg, Salmonator, and Shane,

Thank you.

-Marty

[ 10-02-2001: Message edited by: Gone Fishin ]

[Bait O' Eggs]

Marty, you are welcome images/icons/smile.gif

*** - I am curious who you are and why you seem to want to remain anominous? You seem to be an intelligent person and very informed on the topic. It seems strange to me to have such a strong opinion on something and fight for your beliefs from behind a vail. images/icons/confused.gif I may be wrong but dont believe I have ever met you at an ifish function, or seen your "Real" name here on the board. You seem to want to engage Marty (which is your right to debate issues here) but dont seem to want to tell him who you are images/icons/confused.gif Seems kind of like sending a letter but not signing it. I lose a lot of respect for a persons position when they speak from the shadows. Because Marty is standing on the line expressing his views and who he is, he gets far more respect from me, on who he is, and what he believes in.

Does your job not allow you to reveal your identity in a public forum? images/icons/confused.gif

As long as the hatchery on the Nestucca system is going to raise fish each year. It is so obvious the best "man" can do is use eggs with the closest makeup to what nature would do. Hatching eggs from Nestucca fish in the Nestucca River, rather than using Alsea orinated eggs in the Nestucca River is so obvious you dont need a degree to understand it. If the decesion to not allow hatcheries is made that is a complete different topic, but as long as the hatchery is there and being utilized, it should be done with the best fish we can provide. I understand the timing issue, it is a valid concern having hatchery raised fish and native fish competing in the river at the same time. If the hatchery was raising a perfect replica of the native they should be in the river at the same time. The hatchery cannot raise a perfect replica, but to continue to raise a strain of fish that does not belong in that river makes no sense at all unless the objective is to create a new strain of fish.

Not trying to take a cheap shot at you, I refer to things as a *** all of the time. You will be just that in my book until I understand why you need to remain anominous, or you step out of the shadows and put a face with your beliefs and actions. I might even agree with you, if I could respect your arguement.

I believe our terrorist are using the same tactics as you right now by "making a statement but not saying who they are".

Using the internet as a medium for discussion we have the right to remain anominous. It is really quite easy to be anomious and some people feel safe behind there screens. I will continue to listen to the anominous persons arguements, and I will scale back my respect for that position with no face.

Remain anominous if you must, but please try to explain to us why.

Roy Markee

[Tanner]

Marty,
I am in. I will be sending my letter off today or tomorrow.
To those of you that would question Marty's motives in this: I have fished with Marty, for March Natives, On the Nestucca. I have fished with a few guides in the past and personally know a few others. I have never seen a guide exhibit such a deep heartfelt concern for a river and the fish it holds. This man spends a good pecentage of his life on this river. I challenge any one of you that question his integrity or motives to fish with him just once during the native runs in early spring. You will see a man who cares a lot about this natural resource.

Instituting a broodstock program on this river would be a wise investment for our future.

[Point-of-Sale Clerk]

Bait O’ Eggs…

In this instance *** Stands for “Point Of Sale”

As for why I must remain anonymous, The Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife has many contractors and corporations that provide goods and services needed for the work that they do. In every contract entered into with ODFW there is a clause that loosely states that no one under this agreement shall publicly oppose any program or policy of the ODFW. To do so will mean dissolution of any and all contracts at ODFW’s discretion. This seems contrary in a society based on freedom of speech but ODFW is rather paranoid when protecting its house of cards. Two years ago this month I began publicly pursuing changes to the ODFW *** System with the way SS#s were used collected and secured. To make a very long story short the outcome was ODFW put pressure on my company to “change” my employment, my company yelled at me, the Attorney Generals Office determined that ODFW was in violation of federal law with their policy, some elected officials yelled at ODFW and the company I work for, and I promised never to publicly oppose ODFW policy, and one person at ODFW “retired”, hence the persona “*** Clerk”
And you called me a terrorist…

I to would like to see changes made to the hatchery system we have now. But from a political standpoint we should not all say yes I am all for it. Real change to how this hatchery is run could be accomplished by saying “well I really do not like the idea but if you make these changes I will support it” when we all jump on the band wagon so speak we loose the only leverage we have to make real changes. Les used political and legal tactics and now many things are more correct this time around. If we as fishermen want to make real and helpful changes to this and other watersheds we must learn politics and start thinking for ourselves.

*** Clerk

[Bait O' Eggs]

***
Thanks for the explanation on why you are stealthy with your ID. I guess I will give more consideration as to your point of view in the future.

And all this time I thought you called yourself a *** due to a self esteem problem, images/icons/wink.gif images/icons/wink.gif I had no idea you meant "Point of Sale".

Marty I still agree with you on this one and sent my letter.

[Bait O' Eggs]

I am bringing this post to the top so it is easy to find for a non registered individual (at least I dont think he post here).

I have heard from Les Helgeson via email. He questioned my intelligence in this world and a few other things that were less than flattering to myself. images/icons/rolleyes.gif images/icons/rolleyes.gif

I guess he took exception to the inbred comment living along the river in my first post. images/icons/wink.gif

I invited him to come here and post his side of the arguement. Lets see if he will come forward and present his reasons for not wanting the broodstock program.

For a guy who appears to have fought this tooth and nail, he must be well informed on the topic. I am curious on his take of the situation. He must have a reason to be so against it, or he wouldnt be opposing it.

Les tell us your reasons, please. images/icons/smile.gif I know you are lurking, you got my email here.

[NEUTRON]

Way to go Roy, you really know how to stir it up. Just like that beaver thread you started a while back. By the way, how about them beavers?

[birdhunter]

This is a letter I also recieved from Les. I think he does a good job in it of explaining his views, though I don't necessarily agree with them. This is the perfect forum to discuss these topics: In an open and public process, just like you said Les. I choose to participate. images/icons/grin.gif


<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR> Hey Birdhunter-

I am the "local inbred" referred to by some dumbshit on Peterson's page. I read your comments and was wondering if you've seen the recent data regarding stray rates on the Siletz? After switching to endemic broodstock and reducing the total smolt releases by half, an increase in returns has
been documented. Unfortunately, the stray rate has jumped to over 60% as determined by trapping at three sites including Siletz Falls. I hope this corrects your misconception about the issue.

Furthermore, ODFW research has documented an extremely low stray rate for Alsea stock fish in the Nestucca during the months Feb. - May which is the wild fish spawning period. We can presume the stray rates are higher in
December and January but this portion of the run has been dominated with Alsea fish for over 50 years anyway. At one time, smolt releases into the Nestucca numbered 400,000!

The question is - do we want to expand the stray rate over the entire wild spawning period? There is a preponderance of scientific evidence strongly suggesting that fish adapt to the hatchery environment in one generation. In other words, it is the current hatchery environment that is the problem as much as the genetics involved and a hatchery fish is a hatchery fish,
regardless of origin. I might note that there is not a single peer reviewed scientific study demonstrating that endemic broodstock are any less of a threat to wild fish than strains such as the Alsea stock.

As a legal matter, the proposed broodstock program will not comply with ODFW's Wild Fish Policy and associated administrative rules. Peterson is attempting politicize an issue he knows very little about and is
consequently wasting a lot of folks time. I am not opposed to switching to endemic broodstock per se, it is a matter of how to do it correctly. Once again, ODFW has screwed up and I am prepared to file a lawsuit to force a basin planning process whereby management objectives and hatchery policy are developed through an open and public process. Perhaps you might choose
to participate!
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


I assure you I'll have some comments later after some more research and phone calls.

[Bait O' Eggs]

Wow Birdhunter, he actually gave you some reasons images/icons/shocked.gif images/icons/shocked.gif

He just referred to my general intelligence or lack there of images/icons/wink.gif images/icons/wink.gif I would post it, but the filter wouldnt leave much to read.

Neutron, What Beavers images/icons/rolleyes.gif images/icons/frown.gif images/icons/wink.gif

[Point-of-Sale Clerk]

Les e-mailed me as well today and expressed his views and concerns. The following is the majority of the e-mail less all non-pertinent information that could possibly antagonize anyone anywhere on this or any neighboring planet I appreciate his willingness to explain his position.

“I have been in touch with legal counsel for ODFW and advised him that I will likely file suit in the event the Commission adopts the proposed rule. Evidence garnered from the Siletz wild steelhead program shows a 60% stray rate resulting from the use of wild broodstock throughout the entire spawning period. Nestucca data (including our good friend's catch data) shows virtually no strays from Feb. - March. Furthermore, the available scientific research shows no difference in the effect of hatchery fish interbreeding with wild fish regardless of broodstock origin. Indeed, fish adapt to the hatchery environment in one generation and cause a 10 fold decrease in fecundity when they interbreed with wild populations. This has been demonstrated for numerous species including Atlantic Salmon, Spring Chinook and Coho. It is important to note that these findings have been duplicated not only in the U.S. but Canada and Europe, as well. The concept that wild brood are less of a threat to wild fish is entirely unfounded and unsupported by peer reviewed scientific literature. Indeed there is an increasing body of evidence to the contrary.”

I also feel this is the perfect forum to discus this or similar matters.

*** Clerk

[Gone Fishin]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>As a legal matter, the proposed broodstock program will not comply with ODFW's Wild Fish Policy and associated administrative rules. Peterson is attempting politicize an issue he knows very little about and is
consequently wasting a lot of folks time. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


How dare you Les,

As for wasting folks time...YOU'RE THE TOPS!

I've never had any personal conversations with you, you don't know me, I've even mailed you and invited you to spend a day on the river, to which I never received a reply.

You know, last winter Les and I were both part of the Nestucca Angling Regulation Workgroup a small group of concerned people, debating rules and regulations for the Nestucca. When things didn't go Les' way, he quit the group. That's his answer to everything, "MY-way or the High-way" kind of attitude.

That's ok Les my good friend, this broodstock program isn't going to go your way either, so you might as well quit now as well.

I'm still waiting for my e-mail, he must like you guys.

[Point-of-Sale Clerk]

Gone Fishin

Although many people surrounding this issue have taken the “my way or the highway” attitude Les’s comments to Birdhunter contained an interesting statement that you have overlooked. Les said “I am not opposed to switching to endemic broodstock per se, it is a matter of how to do it correctly” to me that sounds like an opening. If we could all see the advantages that Les’s “pain in the backside” campaign could have with getting the Commission to change hatchery practices for the better on the Nestucca we could take advantage of the political leverage at hand. Think about it. ODFW wants to change to a native broodstock. NMFS wants a switch to a native broodstock. The local fishermen want to change to a native broodstock. What stands in the way is Les and the fact that ODFW has been very sloppy up till now. If the commission wants this broodstock bad enough they may be compelled to make real changes with regards to current hatchery practices, ESPECIALLY if the fishermen AND Les got together and said we want this broodstock program if you change this, this, and this hatchery practice. Politically it would be a no-brainer because ODFW has already spent money on hatchery facilities and put in place a monitoring program. To not do it now would make them look very foolish. Just think, with a little work we could have on the Nestucca the most progressive and up to date hatchery program on the West Coast of North America. We could also get ODFW to agree to Longer-term goals of improving the rivers ability to produce more wild fish. Who knows, someday with a favorable PDO and a rootball (tree stump and roots) every 20 feet along the Nestucca’s estuary we may actually see a population explosion of wild fish.

All it would take is everyone to stop yelling and start talking.
*** Clerk

[Deleted User]

My question to Les Helgeson is this and I feel it's a legitmate one. What is your motivation? Are you truly concerned about hatchery pratices and managment? *** Clerk I know exactly where you are coming from and while I don't always agree with it 100% I know your motives are unselfish and for what you think is the common good? Mr. Helgeson's motives I'm not so sure. I would really like to be at that meeting in Seaside. There is a lot for me to learn that's for sure.
Stew

[ 10-03-2001: Message edited by: STEWED ]

[Bait O' Eggs]

I had a couple more emails conversations with Les yesterday, I urged him to take his arguement to ifish so we could all see his side of the issues. I appears he wont be posting on ifish, and said the following to me in his last email, “Feel free to post my message to you on the ifish page”. Les answered some of my questions by inserting his answers within my email, I tried to add a heading as to who said what, so you could follow it. Some of it mirrors birdhunters post, some of it is original.



Bait O’ Eggs asked:

Why would you oppose the broodstock program? From what I understand, it
seems to be a better program than is being currently done.

Les answered:

I am not opposed to a native broodstock program, per se. It is the way this
particular program was developed and the method of implementation that is
wrong. It will in fact will result in a greater negative impact to our
native steelhead population here on the Nestucca. This is demonstrated by
recent data and a substantial amount of scientific (peer reviewed) evidence.

First of all, data from the Siletz River, which went to wild brood in 1995,
indicates a dramatically increased stray rate (over 60%) which is a
substantial increase over past stray rates when Alsea brood were used.
True, there has been an increase in returns, as well but this is likely due
to a change in release strategy and a documented decline in cormorant
populations in Siletz bay. The problem is that hatchery stays have
increased dramatically for some unknown reason. The Siletz program is thus
not in compliance with the wild fish policy which allows no more than a 50%
stray rate when endemic brood are used. To his credit (and contrary to the
management in Tillamook) Bob Buckman has held several public meetings to
address the situation and evaluate a range of alternatives. It appears that
the only workable solution will be to further reduce the smolt releases so
as to bring the program into compliance. I must point out that at the time
the Siletz went to wild brood, the smolt releases were reduced from
100,000 (as are currently released on the Nestucca) to 50,000, yet the
stray rates went up to 60% as determined at three trap sites including
Siletz Falls. I must admit that this data took me by surprise.

A related issue involves the fact that ODFW Research has found very few
strays present in the Nestucca during the months of Feb. - May. Peterson's
catch records seem to support this observation, as well. Unfortunately, the
survey period did not cover January and December but I think we can assumethat hatchery strays during these two months are probably substantial. This
is not good but at least the strays are confined to a two month period. But
on the Siletz we now see a 60% stray rate throughout the spawning period,
ie. January through May. We have thus gone from bad to worse as far as
hatchery stray rates are concerned on the Siletz by switching to wild brood.

I must also address the fallacy of wild brood being more compatible with
wild fish than stocks such as the Alsea. This dogma is unsupported in the
literature. It is no different than thinking that the world is flat when
the evidence points to the contrary. There are a number studies summarized
on the Native Fish Society website which reach the same conclusion - fish
adapt to the hatchery environment in only one generation. This conclusion
has been duplicated for several anadromous species not only in the U.S. but
in northern Europe and Canada, as well.

When you think about it from a biological perspective this peer reviewed
conclusion makes sense. Fish that would normally be selected out of the
gene pool due to current environmental conditions are thus put back into
the population in large numbers. Normally, only a small percentage of fry
survive but those that don't are important too in that they constitute a
genetic reserve which might be valuable under changed environmental
conditions. The important thing to realize here is that the population
component selected for in the hatchery is normally present only in small
numbers within the wild population. It only takes one generation to swamp
the gene pool with currently undesirable characteristics - research has
consistently demonstrated a 10 fold DECREASE in fecundity (the ability to
reproduce) in wild populations subject to substantial interaction with
hatchery fish, regardless of brood stock origin. This situation is further
complicated by the behavioral modifications that occur under the current
hatchery regime. The top feeding problem is a huge one - fish are
acclimated so as to be easily taken advantage of by predators such as
cormorants. It is safe to assume that the majority of hatchery smolts
produced under current practices never even make it out to sea! This is why
I am opposed to the Nestucca Wild Steelhead Broodstock Program as it is
currently proposed.

Bait O’ Eggs asked:

I have heard of nobody but you, *** Clerk and Oregon Trout opposing the
broodstock program. *** Clerk seems to kind of be on the fence, just
asking for more studies and monitoring to be done. I know little to
nothing about Oregon trout and nothing about you except what Marty said
about you. I usually run in a circle of friends that fish, and all
fisherman seem to like the idea. Do you fish?

Les Answered:

I can imagine what Peterson has had to say about me - I suppose this is
where you came up with the inbred on the river remark. Nonetheless, there
are many others concerned about the current project including the Native
Fish Society and Trout Unlimited. Even some local guides such as Scott
Amerman have confided to me that the program could be better designed than
what is being proposed. I don't know who *** Clerk is but I agree that more
research and monitoring is needed. Yes, I do fish when I have time, which
isn't all that often anymore. I try to take my kids fishing when I can but
we also just enjoy watching fish in the river from our house.

Bait O’ Eggs asked:

I was born and raised in Tillamook. I have lived on several hatcheries,
including the Trask hatchery, McKenzie Hatchery, Marion Forks Hatchery. I
was raised on the river and have seen the decline of the fish from the
current hatchery practices. I for one am looking for a better program,
doing status quo is getting us no where but down the drain. Where do you
get your information to oppose the program, are you a biologist or some
other professional in the field?


Les answered:

I too have seen a decline in our fisheries although we are witnessing a
rebound of sorts in those species that have been protected here on the
coast, most notably sea-run cutthroat, steelhead and coho. The rebound in
wild steelhead on the Nestucca has apparently been quite dramatic and
raises the question as to whether we even need a steelhead hatchery program
in the first place. Perhaps a (very) limited kill of wild fish might be
more appropriate given further study and monitoring. Personally, I would
rather see ODFW put there money into a credible monitoring program and
regulate our fisheries accordingly. True, this might mean no more elbow to
elbow hog lines, etc. but that is fine with me.

I work as a natural resources consultant and also raise native plants. My
background is in Botany and Forestry and I have a degree from Oregon State
University. I have lived on the Upper Nestucca since 1985 and have endured
ODFW's blatant mismanagement for too long now. I pretty much live with the
fish, they hang out (and spawn) in my back yard and I dare say that I
consider them my friends. But left to the whims of ODFW, particularly the
bunch in Tillamook, the fish would likely perish.

Bait O’ Eggs asked:

Educate my profound ignorance with why I should be against the broodstock
program.

Les answered:

I hope I have given you something useful to think about. I think that if
all interested parties got together and discussed the issues involved, we
could probably come up with a steelhead management program far superior to
what is in place now and certainly that which is being proposed. Legally,
we should be doing this through the basin management planning process as
has been done on the Siletz and many other places. Problem is, ODFW North
Coast Manager Rick Klumph wants nothing to do with it - it might threaten
his little kingdom here in Tillamook County and expose his profound
ignorance of the issues.

[WaterDog]

I wish Les would post here. I for one don’t know jack about this program, good or bad. I’m learning. I’m sure there are many folks that don’t know the issues and what better opportunity to educate us. I have found *** and Marty’s comments insightful so far. Thanks Roy for posting your debate with Les.

[blackdog]

If Les doesn't have a problem with the broodstock program "per se", just with the implementation of the program, what then is his alternative? It is extremely easy to sit on the sidelines and make judgement calls. It is much harder to get out there and actually do some good. I agree with Les that the broodstock program probably isn't perfect, but I think that something needs to be done with our current hatchery practices, as they are obviously failing, and this program looks better than anything else. Until Les can offer something constructive to this issue, he ought to consider keeping his opinions to himself instead of trying to stand in the way of others who actually are trying to do some good.

[Hoosier Daddy]

A little late....
BOE...you aren't related to any Markee's in Salem are you?

[Bait O' Eggs]

Maybe, images/icons/tongue.gif There are a few family members there that are claimed some times, and not at other times. images/icons/wink.gif What did they go and do now? images/icons/confused.gif images/icons/confused.gif images/icons/rolleyes.gif

[toblerone]

hey group, I do have the pleasure of fishing the Nestucca with a guy with over 30 years experience. Grandfathered in to the local scene, he has lived with the decline of one of the Oregon coasts Brightest gems. He is the inbred earlier refered to. I get to listen to him rant and get excited about the condition of our river. One thing that I do see is that though our opinions differ, His and Martys and Les' and other stratigies regarding improving habitat, increasing catch rates, regulations and accessability are all efforts to create a better and sustainable fishery. I am reminded how, due to recent world events, divided political parties have come together for the good of the nation and my hope would be that It wouldn't take a Local disaster to bring us together for the benifit of our fishery on the Nestucca.
I am down here on the Nestucca every weekend as well and claim this as my river too. I invite all Ifish members to be as passionate at you can feel regarding you local fisheries and voice your opinions as opportunities present themselves. Democaracy is the machine the creates the environment in which we live and play so be heard!
Kind regards...
Another John
say hi to the ugly blue boat in tidewater!

[toblerone]

and someone please teach me how to proof read

[Deleted User]

I've been following this with a lot of interest, and learning things. It's one of our best threads, with real potential to do some good things. As does Blackdog, I to would like to hear what better alternatives Les H. has in mind. And since he is into stating apparent scientific studies and statistics negative to current broodstock programs, would ask him for clear evidence to support his 'would be better' ideas of how to impliment the broodstock programs.

I think a meeting involving all these knowledgable and caring people in this thread, and key ODFW bios and personnel coming with their latest information and idea plans to be debated, would be very beneficial toward moving things in the best direction. And let's see if Rick Klumph has any self interests to protect, as Les H. has suggested. Condensed notes from such meetings should be taken and available to the public; and of course the NMFS. Marty, can you talk to Klumph and try to get an open meeting set up in Tillamook about these issues? If Les H. wouldn't show up, his threatened lawsuit would lose impact.

RT

[Deleted User]

An interesting artical I just got via e-mail from NSIA. Some pertinent things regarding this issue. ...


TRYING TO KEEP THE FISH WILD

Studies of hatchery fish may help keep wild fish alive

Susan Gordon &lt; &lt;mailto:susan.gordon@mail.tribnet.com&gt;&gt;; The News Tribune

The researchers sit side by side in the darkness, eyes fixed on the contest that plays out under bright lights before them.
As they watch, their fingers tap code onto keyboards attached to the royal blue screens of laptop computers. And while a video camera rolls, they chatter like sportscasters calling radio play by play.
In this case, the arena isn't a baseball diamond or a football field. It's a fish bowl. Or to be specific, a specially designed aquarium in which small steelhead trout compete for food.
Here at the National Marine Fisheries Service's laboratory in Manchester, near Port Orchard in Kitsap County, biologists do behavioral experiments they hope will yield results that will keep wild fish from dying out.
"My interest is to do the best job we can to help," said Barry Berejikian, fisheries research biologist, who designed and oversees the experiments.
He and his colleagues have paired similar-sized fish with identical genetic histories to test how fish jockey for survival.
"We're looking at whether raising hatchery fish in a more realistic environment affects their behavior, growth and how they interact with other fish," said research biologist Stephen Riley who works for Berejikian.
The behavior studies, which began in 1998, cost the fisheries service $250,000 annually. The Bonneville Power Administration picks up the tab, which amounts to a fraction of the $300 million it spends annually on programs linked to recovery of imperiled stocks of Columbia River salmon and steelhead. The money comes from hydropower sales.
For years, nobody much cared what went on in fish hatcheries as long as they produced fish people could catch.
But now, because so many wild strains of salmon and steelhead are imperiled, some fisheries biologists would like to use hatcheries as a backstop, to supplement or conserve dwindling stocks of fish.
At the same time, there's worry about the kind of fish that hatcheries produce. Trouble is, hatchery fish misbehave. Part of the reason is that hatcheries aren't much like real life. It's a sterile environment, where fish are confined in unnaturally close quarters.
"Can you imagine growing up in a room with no chairs or beds or anything?" asked Walt Dickhoff, a University of Washington fisheries professor who also works as a physiologist for the National Marine Fisheries Service.
One downside, scientists have found, is that hatchery fish are exceptionally aggressive and more likely than wild fish to attack other fish.
Scientists believe aggression helps fish survive in hatcheries. But the trait may not be as useful after hatchery fish are released into streams. One of the fears is that hatchery fish disturb wild fish by crowding them out.
"Salmon don't compete directly for food. They compete for space that is access to food," Riley said. "At a given moment in time in the stream, there's a predictable place where food will be. Fish will compete for access to that food and the dominant fish will get that space."
Hatchery fish may not know how to do that.
"If their territories are larger and they are more aggressive they may hinder the wild fish from reaching their full growth potential," Berejikian said.
Because hatchery fish are so ill-suited for stream life, National Marine Fisheries Service scientists started experimenting with changes in the hatchery environment about eight years ago .
Scientists eliminated overhead feeders and added natural features, such as gravel and tree branches, to give fish places to hide similar to a real stream.
The changes appear to have helped hatchery fish endure in the wild, a least in the short term. Scientists have measured a 20 percent to 50 percent increase in survival in the weeks following release, said Robert Iwamoto, the scientist who oversees the NMFS Manchester lab. As a result, some hatcheries have modified their rearing practices.
But there's still the question of whether the changes will modify fish manners. In other words, whether hatchery fish will act more like wild fish. "Nobody knows what the enriched rearing environments do to the behavior of the fish," Berejikian said. That's what his experiments test.
The studies compare conventionally raised hatchery fish, fish from what Berejikian calls enriched hatchery environments and fish that have spent some time in a creek.
Two studies are taking place at the laboratory now.
About 320 fish are matched up in sections of an artificial outdoor stream where they spend a month competing for food. No one feeds them. Instead, they munch the same kind of bugs they'd find in the wild. "There's a lot of natural food in the channel," Riley said.
A team of biologists weighed and measured the fish before placing them in the stream. They'll be weighed and measured again when they are removed.
"We're trying to see whether changes in behavior result in changes in growth or survival," Riley said.
Elsewhere at the lab, biologists pit small groups of like-sized fish against each other in a swiftly moving artificial channel. The biologists drop food - frozen blood worms - into the flume and watch what happens. In all, thousands of fish are involved.
Each observation lasts 10 minutes. During that time, biologists record virtually every fish move - every chase, attack, threat or bite of food - on the computer. They also record the whole thing on tape.
"It's kind of like being a sports commentator," said Riley.
The bottom of each tank is marked off with a grid. Afterwards, biologists replay each tape and map the territory utilized by each fish. And because it's hard to distinguish between fish on tape, the biologists' chatter helps identify them.
During one recent observation, a hatchery fish was matched with a stream fish
"There's one, there's two. Oh, you got both of them, Anita," fisheries biologist Jeff Atkins says to colleague Anita LaRae. They both stared as fish No. 2, arbitrarily assigned to Anita, grabbed two blood worms from the current that carried them through the tank.
It's too early to say what this set of experiments will yield. "We're still getting data cranked into the computers and analyzed," Berejikian said.
His previous research has suggested that conventionally reared hatchery fish are less likely to get to food first than fish with stream experience or fish raised in enriched hatchery environments. Also, conventionally raised fish are more likely to bite or attack instead of flaring their fins to scare others away, he said.
The next step will be to field test the whole experiment in a natural stream next year, Berejikian said. Researchers wearing snorkels will watch what goes on.
"These studies definitely have a real purpose and will be useful in helping us recover these animals," said Steve Schroder, a fisheries research scientist with the state Department of Fish and Wildlife.
- - -
* Staff writer Susan Gordon &lt; &lt;mailto:susan.gordon@mail.tribnet.com&gt;&gt; covers the environment and natural resources.

[ 10-05-2001: Message edited by: RT ]

[willierower]

I have a question for Les,
What is the stray rate for true wild born native steelhead?
Has there been studies on hat subject?

I recall reading some articles on the Steelhead of the Kamchatka(sp) Pennisula in Siberia. These steelhead are 100% wild. Irecall reading that this fish are very proned to straying. In one case a fish was caught, tagged and released in one river. The next year it was caught again in a totally differnt basin many miles from the first capture.
The main difference between the fish over there and the fishe here in the Northwest is. The Siberian fish spawn more repeatedly than the fish here. If I recall the article said some fished spawned up to
5 different years.
Les, Feel free to email me your answer to my question. Thanks.

[birdhunter]

It's baaaack!

I told you I'd have a reply.

I'm actually still working on it, but lest anyone think that this issue is resolved or that I don't have evidence to back up my opinons, let me present the following. This is all gleaned from a NOAA technical Memorandum (NMFS-NMFSSC-30) entitled: Genetic effects of Straying of Non-Native Hatchery Fish into Natural Populations, proceedings of the workshop June 1-2, 1995, Seattle, WA.

This is from Steven Leider of the WDFW (pgs 21-22). Here goes:

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR> The key factor when considering the genetic effects of straying is maladaptive gene flow, not just the physical presence of non-local or hatchery-origin fish in natural populations. However, direct measurement of gene low are at best difficult to obtain, the number of strays into a spawning populations may be all that we have as surrogate estimates of gene flow.

Several assumptions about life-history patterns and gene flow have been made during our wild-salmonid policy discussions. One is that some level of straying and gene flow occurs naturally between wild populations, but just how much and under what circumstances is uncertain. Another assumption is that human-produced elevated rates of natural straying and unintended starying from non-local hatchery sources are undesirable becasue of the potential loss of genetic variablility within and among populations, and because outbreeding may decrease fitness and productivity. More information on the effects of outbreeding depression is urgently needed to assist in the development of rational management polices. Another important assuption in the evolving policy is that various management strategies can be used to increase homing or to decrease rates of straying.

We are aware that reproductive isolation between subpopulations can occur in different ways. Some groups of fish may spawn at the same time, but in different places. Others may spawn at different times, but in the same area. Again, accommodating these subtleties of life-history patterns and migratory and spawning behavior is important. Although simply measuring the number or percentage of hatchery fish straying into a particular stream may be feasible, it will lead to imprecise estimates of gene flow. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Couple of other interesting blurbs from that Memo. My good friend images/icons/rolleyes.gif Bill Bakke was in it. You know what he called hatchery fish? "Biological pollution" (pg 26). Just endears him to your heart doesn't it.

Still Mr. Bakke did agree that, "Converting hatcheries to raise only native brood stock may greatly reduce the effects of hatchery straying." (26). He did also suggested further studies, which I would also agree too.

I'll have more in the future. Tons to comment on. Just let me wade through all of this. Want some late-night reading? May I suggest the following. They are real page turners.

Altukhow, Y.P.; Salmenkova, E.A.; Omelchenko, V.T. (2000). Salmonid Fishes: Population Biology, Genetics, and Management. Blackwell Science Ltd: London.

“Answers to questions asked of ODFW Director Jim Greer by the Joint Interim Regulations Committee on Stream Restoration and Species Recovery on April 24, 2000. Answers provided on May 5, 2000” http://www.dfw.state.or.us/ODFWhtml/InfoCntrFish/sr2qa.html

Brown, Bruce (1982). Mountain in the clouds: a search for the wild salmon. Simon and Schuster: New York.

Ford, Michael J. and Jeffrey J. Hard. “Does traditional hatchery production help conserve wild salmon --a comment on the Fall Creek coho hatchery controversy.” Northwest Fisheries Science Center: http://www.nwfsc.noaa.gov/cbd/LannanResponse.pdf

Hulett, P. L. (1991). Patterns of Genetic Inheritance and Variation through Ontogeny for Hatchery and Wild Stocks of Chinook Salmon. OSU thesis.

Riggs, J. (1986) Genetic Considerations in Salmon and Steelhead Planning. NW Power Planning Council.

Adams, N. S. (1995) Variatoin in Mitochondrial DNA and Allozymes Discriminates Early and Late Forms of Chinook Salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) in the Kenai and Kasilof Rivers, AK. OSU thesis.

Noble, S. M. (1991)Impacts of Earlier Emerging Steelhead Fry of Hatchery Origin on the Social Structure, Distribution, and Growth of Wild Steelhead Fry. OSU thesis.

Genetic Guidelines for Evaluation and Selection of Enhancement Projects under the Salmon and Steelhead Conservaton and Enhancement Act. Pacific Marine Fisheries Commission report (Contract # 84-0002) April, 1984.

Cone & Ridlington. (1996) The NW Salmon Crisis. OSU Press.

ed. Cowx, I.G. (1998) Stocking and Introduction of Fish. International Fisheries Institute.

Lichatowich, J. (1999) Salmon w/out Rivers. Island Press.

[Point-of-Sale Clerk]

Birdhunter…

You just couldn’t let it go, could ya?

First, your argument that just measuring the total number of stays does not give an accurate estimate of unintended gene flow is in my opinion very correct. The importance of spawn timing is not lost on me. But I believe that would support Les’s contention that changing the hatchery broodstock to move spawning to match the current wild run will put them in the river at the same time. Currently a transfer of genes would be difficult if one run spawns first and the other second. If they are not in the river at the same time little mixing should occur. I’m sure Les appreciates the info.

Mr. Bakke is rather tame when it comes to hatchery fish, I call them “Genetic Trash” or “taxpayer money waste”

How would you directly measure gene flow in a given population? Studying allozyme loci, or minisatellite or microsatellite loci? (yes I am testing your genetic prowess, he-he-he).

As to assumptions, I believe that the whole Idea that hatcheries somehow create more returning adult fish is a false assumption. Replacing wild fish with hatchery fish does nothing more than employ large numbers of hatchery workers and moves the emphasis away from what is really needed, reduced commercial harvest and improved habitat.

What is “your” opinion of Oregon’s Independent Multidisciplinary Science Team and their report to the legislature regarding hatcheries?

*** Clerk

[birdhunter]

I couldn't let it go? No, when you are talking about getting rid of hatcheries I can't let it go. No, when we are trying to implement programs to retain hatchery fish while at the same time saving our wild fish I can't let it go. And no, when I say that I have comments about a topic very near and dear to my heart, but want to research my stance before posting, I won't let it go.

You wild fish nuts can't have it both ways. You talk about how inferior hatchery fish are. How they stray too much, how they have very low fecundity, how they are poor at mate selection, because they don't know how to behave properly. Yet for all their inferiority, they are still such a threat to wild fish, because they spawn too successfully with them spreading their genes and outcompeting them. And don't give me the whole "hatchery fish overwhelm wild fish by sheer numbers" argument. I've heard that too many times to even bother arguing it in this post at least. In the Nestucca this is not the case for returning adults.

Your point that early-returning hatchery fish cannot spawn w/ later-returning wild fish is not lost on me. I've been saying it for years. Early return time: another one of those "inferior" traits about hatchery fish. Wild fish nuts cite this as evidence that hatchery fish are inferior and then when we try to introduce brood stock to match natural run times, they argue against that. Guess you won't be happy until we don't have any hatcheries left, huh?

Testing my genetic prowess (he-he-he)? images/icons/rolleyes.gif Well, in order to do a comparison between native fish and hatchery fish you'd have to have a pure native fish for comparison. Not too likely nowadays. But, humoring you, say we do find a fish w/out any genetic contamination from any hatchery fish. For comparison I'd take hatchery and wild fish of the same generation and calculate initial allele frequencies. Of course those alleles would have to be selectively neutral. That is to say that there would have to be temporal stability of biochemical traits within or between year classes. Allozyme markers could be used to follow the genetic progress for a set period of time. This information, gleaned from tissue samples, is analyzed using PCR and gel electophoresis. The resulting data can be used to effectively track genetic markers from generation to generation. Of course many problems exsist in this sort of a situation. It would have to assume that the initial fish had been unchanged in generations previous. That is to say that they weren't already undergoing any evolution. It also doesn't take into consideration selective factors from the natural enviornment that may favor some fish over others. It doesn't even take into consideration straying from other fish. Yet this is how genetic testing is done on salmon and this is why I don't put much stock in their results. They can be squewed to fit whatever angle you want. There is a ton geneticists don't know yet, and I personally think it is unresponsible to put total faith behind polices based on theory and conjecture. More studying needs to be done, and more refined techniques need to be used. Ideally we need some kind of salmon genome project, but I doubt that will ever happen.

So yes, I do know a little something about genetics. Might have something to do with me working as a morphologist/serologist for the USFWS. Or it could be my current job as a viral geneticist at a diagnostic lab. Maybe that whole majoring in F&W management w/ an emphasis on fisheries genetics has something to do with it. Hmmmmm.

It's late now, but as to my opinion of the OIMST to the legislature, I have to be careful because I know many of these people personally. I understand what they are trying to do, but I think that some of their expectations are unrealistic. I also feel like they are just regurgitating what has been the buzz for the past 5 years. Nothing they had to say surprises me, but I don't consider their word to be the end all be all. Like I said, I know many of the members personally and have in the past had disagreements w/ their methods and results. That is all I really can say about that right now.

So there it is again. G'Nite!

[ 10-12-2001: Message edited by: birdhunter ]

[TheRogue]

Uhhhhhhhhhhhhhh..........

Wow!! images/icons/wink.gif