Jim Myron.... Just to set the record straight..

[Jennie@ifish]

Just got this in e mail:

Just to set the record straight on the comments I made to the Oregonian in a letter to the editor about the state's fish hatchery program, I thought I'd send along the original draft that was submitted. You will have to look very hard to find the quote that Jerry Dove and Jim Woods attributed to me in their "Dear Legislator" letter of 1-25-02. (Their letter quoted me as saying: "Nobody realizes any value from hatchery fish, other than the sports and commercial fisherman." Perhaps these fine, upstanding, and honest gentlemen would like to correct the misinformation they sent to the legislators?
Jim Myron


Date: Tue, 08 Jan 2002 06:36:23 -0800
To: letters@news.oregonian.com
From: Jim Myron
Subject: State Hatchery Closures in Pespective


1-8-02


Letter to the Editor


Governor Kitzhaber has proposed the closure of five state fish hatcheries in order to save the taxpayers of the state about a million dollars per year. Even if the Legislature agrees with the Governor and orders these hatcheries closed, Oregon will still have 29 state operated hatcheries with an annual budget of about $20 million.


This seems like a small price to pay by the commercial and recreational anglers who are the direct beneficiaries of this taxpayer subsidized program. The real question that Oregonians should contemplate is why are we subsidizing the production of hatchery fish in the first place? Shouldn't those who directly benefit from the hatchery program be the ones who fund its operation?


Jim Myron
Conservation Director
Oregon Trout


Jim Myron
Conservation Director
Oregon Trout
117 S. W. Naito Parkway
Portland, OR 97204


"To protect and restore wild, native fish"

[Thumper]

Ahhh, errrr, Jim.....I think the wording is very slightly different but the message is precisely the same....maybe even worse. Who on earth would want to belong to Oregon Trout???

[Cool Texan]

Call me crazy, but... doesnt the mis-quote and the official letter essentially imply the same message?

You are right though...maybe those who benefit should pay for it. And since I dont have any kids yet, you can pay my portion of taxes that goes towards the educational system. I think that is probably a few hundred bucks a year...so if you could just drop a check in the mail, that would be super. :rolleyes:

Any marine biologists on the board that could update this guy on what the fish provide to the rivers besides just targets for my flies???

What a boooob.

[TheRogue]

Sorry Jim, wrong tactic!!!

If you look at the hatchery $$ spent, vs the economic gain from guides, tackle shops, restaurants, hotels, etc.....it's probably the single most effective economic subsidy there is.

That was proven by the amount of $$$ spent this last year with the record returns and the incredible amount of anglers out there after them.

I was disgusted by the letter in the Oregonian, and sent my own reply, which didn't appear. I try to stay out of the biological side of things, it's not my forte. But dollar vs. dollar is a pretty simple comparison....and Mr. Myron showed his desperate ignorance (and arrogance) on this one.

kyle

[ 01-28-2002: Message edited by: TheRogue ]</p>

[Artwo]

Jim,
If yours is the narrow minded view of this organization that you can count me out. I believe in the protection and restoration of wild fish and their habitat. But, I also see the benefits both economically as well as socially of the hatchery programs being proposed for closure. In the grand sceme of things, is this 1 million dollar budget savings worth the millions of dollars in lost economic revenue to the regions where these proposed hatcheries are located......I can't see it in my opinion.

JK

[Pete]

It's a little disingenuous to say that taxpayers are subsidizing the hatchery program. Yes, about 50% of the funding for coastal hatcheries comes from the State's General Fund - the rest is primarily from License fees. But why are the hatcheries needed? Loss of spawning habitat plays a big role. Is that caused by fishers? Or is it due to logging, development, farming, road building and other uses? Shouldn't these other activities help bear the burden of their harm through providing funding to the coastal hatcheries just as the federal government funds Columbia River hatcheries to compensate for lost habitat due to the federal dam projects?

Also, if the benefitiaries should pay, wouldn't that also include everyone who benefits from a healthy commercial and sport fishery on the coast? Isn't there a cultural value to all from these fish that so strongly define who we are as Oregonians? Won't future generations benefit from having vital fisheries? It seems to me that the "direct" benefitiaries are already carrying the ball on this one through license fees... and the responsibility for these fisheries extends far beyond just that.

In ODFW's defense, the proposed budget calls for a cut in the State General Fund, shared by all recipients. The 9 coastal hatcheries are the primary recipients of all ODFW's State General Fund money. There just aren't other places in the ODFW budget where General Fund money can be cut. But also, this is a proposed budget. Letting legislators know that we care is the best way to make sure these programs aren't hurt when the final budget is signed.

[ 01-28-2002: Message edited by: Pete ]</p>

[TheRogue]

Excellent examples, Pete. This could get really ugly....thanx for looking a little deeper.

kyle

[RW]

Holy Crap, now I have heard it all!!! "Hey Jim take off your rose colored glasses". I don't even know where to start in responding to such drival.

"Shouldn't those who directly benefit from the hatchery program be the ones who fund its operation?" That would be the anglers, bait shop, tackle store, motels, Willie boats, Yamaha motors, Columbia sports wear, Red Ball boots, The Guide Shop, The Rendevous resterant in Tillamook, Shilo Inns, Coors, Safeway food stores Tillmook county residents, Dave Johnson, Marty Peterson and the most important? THE ECONOMY STUPID!!!!

Yea, now we have term limits and myopic (sp) individuals like this Jim guy and running around Salem telling all the new green legislators all this crap! OK, so I went past my two cents! RW

[TheRogue]

Sorry, Jim, I think you did more damage to your organization with one letter than the good you've done in the last 5 years.

[AngleThis]

Here's a wild idea...since we are fuding the rearing of hatchery fish, the vast majority of which either rot or the state sells as fertilizer to farmers for peanuts, how about they fin clip ALL the non-natives and raise the limits on them???? If not, I'd say go ahead and close those hatcheries, and those rivers so the natives can repopulate unmolested.

Or better yet, pull the hatcheries in question from state control, and let volunteer fisherman or a private fish friendly organization run them!!!!... fewer tax dollars involved and more fish as well!

DC

[Point-of-Sale Clerk]

Pete

Please produce any scientifically based study that indicates adult spawner recruitment on Oregon’s coastal rivers are limited by spawning or rearing habitat. Although it is easy to say that logging is why we need hatcheries it ignores the fact that overall adult salmonid returns fluctuate independently of hatchery augmentation. There is some evidence that indicates that after a moderate level of hatchery plantings additional plantings actually reduce the total number of returning adult salmon (hatchery and wild). Some of the newest data indicates that many of our coastal streams are actually river estuary habitat and near ocean estuary habitat limited. If this being the case hatchery programs that are designed to bypass the spawning and rearing habitat will not produce extra salmon but simply replace a proportionate amount of the smolting wild population.

With few exceptions, ocean conditions and Alaskan and Canadian Commercial harvest are what truly determines how good or bad Oregon’s salmon runs are. Addressing salmon’s habitat needs through out their entire lifecycle is what we should concentrate on and not securing funding for ODFW’s big cement ponds. Better and improved management will produce improved runs and higher quality fish. More hatcheries will have the opposite affect.

[David Johnson]

Maybe we should ban all Oregon Trout anglers from ever fishing for hatchery fish, anywere. That would stop any hypocrosy because I'm sure they benifit from hatcheries too.

Snobs....

[Gone Fishin]

[ 01-28-2002: Message edited by: Gone Fishin ]</p>

[Rauly]

RW you forgot the airlines that bring out of state people here to fish and the rental cars to get there to fish. :grin: Mr. Myron please go some where else.

[Phish_on]

Yikes! What an intolerant bunch.

It is not fair to quote someone as saying:

"Nobody realizes any value from hatchery fish, other than the sports and commercial fisherman."

If what he said was:

"This seems like a small price to pay by the commercial and recreational anglers who are the direct beneficiaries of this taxpayer subsidized program. .... Shouldn't those who directly benefit from the hatchery program be the ones who fund its operation?"

I hate being misquoted!

As for those who "directly benefit" - obviously - gas stations, mechanics, tackle dealers, tackle manufacturers, boat builders, restaurants, motels, guides, grocery stores, fishing websites, breweries, bakeries, farmers ...

Those people get money! All I get is the opportunity to give it to them, and maybe a fish or two. Benefit, indeed.

I'm waiting to see if the people who will cut hatcheries are the people who tried to sell us on the "species not endangered because hatchery fish are identical to wild fish" plan - any bets?

[Gone Fishin]

[ 01-28-2002: Message edited by: Gone Fishin ]</p>

[Jennie@ifish]

Debating an issue is fine.
Name calling is really not useful for our purpose here.
If we cannot discuss the issue at hand without name calling, I'll have to shut this thread down.
Now.... back to the hatcheries...
People DO feel differently about it.
What are we going to DO about it?
I tried to take a letter from Jerry Dove, get it signed, and get it out to the people.
We WILL have people who vote against us. What are we going to do about it?
How can I amend the letter until I hear from Jerry?
Even if he was misquoted, the opposition still stands. How can we counter?
Jen

[Osprey]

I normally don't get involved in Oregon politics......I think this Guy shouldn't have either........Os

What his last name...Moron :shocked:

[Phish_on]

hey, don't panic - the "special" session hasn't even started

[Thumper]

Helloooooo ..... Are there any members of Oregon Trout out there??? What is your take on all this?

[cosmo]

Where's rob allen when Jim needs him most!!

[TheRogue]

Oh, Cosmo....right on the head with that one.

[CATCH AND EAT]

My name calling post has been edited for those that are offended. Still think it's a bunch of poop! :mad:

[Jennie@ifish]

doo doo to you, c and e.
:smile:
Regardless of how anyone feels about Jim, or Oregon Trout, we need to be prepared for what they have to say, in order to defend our hatcheries.

How are we going to do that?
Jen

[Jennie@ifish]

Wait a minute.
This is totally ironic.
We all, no matter where we stand, have a passion for the survival of our fish.
We may come from totally different view points, and have totally different ideas about how we will get to where we want to be, but we all share a passion for our fisheries.
It is exactly this kind of controversy, I believe, that leads us nowhere.
We end up fighting between ourselves, instead of combining energy for what we want to save.

I may be totally out of line here, but it just occurs to me how frustrating it can be to come together to fight for a cause. We end up fighting between ourselves while our fish die.

Its broke!

HOW ARE WE GOING TO FIX IT?

[Phish_on]

this is Jennie who hates the political talk!

:shocked:

[TheRogue]

Fact #1... I don't like paying $100 electric bills. I would absolutely freak over $200, or $300 or more. I like to believe that I'm not any different than most NW'erners.

Fact #2... As long as there are people here in the Pacific NW, with hydro dams, logging, road building, farming, lawn fertilizers, etc., etc., there will be an adverse impact to wild fish. PERIOD.

Fact #3... There is no proof that shutting down the hatcheries will allow enough wild fish(generally refering to most coho and steelhead populations here) populations to grow to allow a SUSTAINABLE catch and eat fishery. Unless we all turn into elitist C&R forever type people, this ain't a good thang!!

Fact #4... Once something is on the threatened/endangered species list, it is damn near impossible to get it off, regardless of what happens to the population. (see spotted owls, miscounted/uncounted, yet they're still there)

To me, this simply means we have 2 choices:

#1. Everyone in the Pacific NW packs up and moves to California for, let's say, 500 years, tearing out dams and bridges and culverts, etc...

#2. We continue to utilize hatcheries in a way that gives us a SUSTAINABLE number of fish to harvest, and yet do our best to rebuild the wild fish numbers in what ways we can, including habitat enhancement, severe restrictions/penalties on sewage spills (Cities of Portland and Salem!!), continue to enforce the Oregon Salmon Plan, continue to allow biologically sound logging to take place, and on and on.

kyle

[ 01-28-2002: Message edited by: TheRogue ]</p>

[Thumper]

Pretty smart guy, that Kyle is!

[RW]

O.K. Jen, To not make this a confrontational issue, instead of calling this guy an idiot, I will just say he is acting like one???? RW :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

[Jennie@ifish]

Yes, and then give him a time out.
:grin:
Way out!
DOH! I'm sorry!

[CATCH AND EAT]

No Jennie, Poop is the correct term dear. Doo-doo is something that Kilches does on your floor! This guy is full of himself and his agenda. Extremists like him are not welcome. Conservation is fine but what these folks are after follows along the line of PETA. Oppppssss! Sorry, I did not mean to swear. PETA is a swear word right. HUmmm maybe POOP is too.

By the way Jen. Off the subject, did you know that ***** is a bad word on this board. Isnt that *****?

Geeeeezzzzzz Jen...... :rolleyes:

[Point-of-Sale Clerk]

Phish_on

I dislike being misquoted as well.

It seems intolerance is the currency used when other denominations are not available.


Jennie

You are very correct. We all have deep feelings regarding our sport and this natural resource. Although we may never truly agree on all aspects of these issues, it is important that we ALL learn to discuss these issues without allowing the deep-seated feelings we posses to interfere with informative debate. Like it or not discussion is the way many policies are decided on. We had better learn to do it or we will not be affective trying to persuade ODFW or others to see things our way or to help protect wild fish.

The only substitute for good manners is fast reflexes…

I am very interested in what Joan Dukes has to say. Please post what you can


*** Clerk

[Thumper]

Good job, Mr. Myron. You certainly made a strong impression on the Ifish crowd! Thanks for the clarification of Oregon Trout's position.

What do the Oregon Trout members here on Ifish have to say??

[Jennie@ifish]

Got a copy of a letter Joan Dukes sent to Mr. Myron.
Waiting for permission to copy and post.

Jen

[CATCH AND EAT]

Horse Pucky Jim!!!!!! :mad: You seen narrow minded there atOregon Trout. You need to roll up your magic carpets and go save the earth in Afganistan. You folks really anger me. You hide under the vail of fish to exploit your ambitions of environmental terrorism. You should join ELF!!!

Pointless drival, I say, that is dangerous to what we all stand for. (at least I hope). What a bunch of bulvin solliliquie. (BS).

Take your balone elsewhere Jim! :mad: :depressed: :tongue: We don't need it here.

Jennie, I edited this to hopefully be more pallatable to all. Sorry about the name calling. But these guys truly ruin the fun we as fishers want to have.

[ 01-28-2002: Message edited by: CATCH AND EAT ]</p>

[Jennie@ifish]

Catch and eat, e mail me what the word was.
I bought into a generic word filter, and I do have to go through it and change some of it.
Hey! I took out damn and **** for those of you who seem to think it necessary.
Anyway....
Jerry Dove wrote to me about the misquote:

--read his letter, I read it as the beneficiaries of hatchery fish are the commercial and the sport fisherman. He can say what he likes in my mind that is what he is saying. Jerry

So, it stands as written.

Constantly trying to please... :rolleyes:

Jen

[Straydog]

While the quote was somewhat distorted, the meaning was the same and anyone that has any history of Mr. Myron and his organization should not be suprised.
I too hate being misquoted. On the other hand, if the meaning remains the same I have enough dignity to take it and not whine about trivial wording details.

Mr. Myron would have ALL hatcheries closed in a heart beat if he had the power, given what I have heard him say in this letter and in the past.

The notion that only those that "directly" (pretty politically slick word.... please define that for us)benefit from any service should have to be the sole supporter of said service is simply not practical or logical in a modern capitalistic society. For the sake of not making anyone mad, I won't say it sounds stupid! (oops, it slipped)

One thing we can do is stop arguing about petty quotes, realize that Oregon Trout is more an extreme environmental group than interested in Sportfishing and unite in our efforts to constantly remind our leaders that our economy depends to a large degree on the numbers of fish that swim our coast and return to our rivers.

If todays circumstances dictate that those fish in most basins come largly from hatchery birth, then we need to continue to try to change that balance, reform how we run our hatcheries and eliminate them if and when we have successfully rebuilt naturally producing runs to a fishable level. That will not happen in some basins and hatchries will always carry the day or fishing will go away.

In my opinion, Mr. Myron's agenda is not to enhance fishing but rather do away with it or make it an elite sport that by virtue of expense will be limited to a small number of folks.
Rather than worry about his exact words, we must stay united in thwarting his agenda.

[dawhunt]

SO MUCH FOR OREGON TROUT :depressed: ,I can't believe what Jim said.He must not even have a clue as to what the sport fishermen and women bring to the economy in Ore. & Wa. just in tourism alone not counting US !!!!,I'm talking about millions of dollars and hundreds of jobs for our economy and people.I think maybe he just had a bad dream and he'll (they'll) wake up to the true facts.If he wants to get on the band wagon then he (they) should join with us in getting the sewage out of the rivers and help get proper logging practices and STOP the gillnetting :depressed: (ALL) if the Indians want casino's then they should have to give up there fishing rights (other then only for ceramonial fishing)seeing as how there makeing millions off the gambling they don't need to fish for a living !!! all of this would help I'm sure.
If this is the way Oregon Trout thinks as a group and not just JIM then they are THEY and they need to wake up. :whazzup:
Bob Dawson

[ 01-29-2002: Message edited by: dawhunt ]</p>

[Cool Texan]

Well damn it to all ****!! :shocked:


Sorry, just testing Jenni's new word filter to make sure she gave us those critical words back.

Now speaking of...do we have:

Booger
Snot
****
and last but not least... a-hole

This is only a test.

:grin: :shocked: :grin:

[Cool Texan]

HEY...why dont we have

T
U
R
D
?

(always a way around the system) :shocked: :grin: :rolleyes:

[Gone Fishin]

Very, wery well put Straydog!

-Marty

[garyk]

Wow! Healthy river systems with abundant populations of naturally spawning fish -- what an extreme, radical idea! Just who are those nuts!
Somebody better tell Rush about this!

[Point-of-Sale Clerk]

Straydog

Yes our economy benefits greatly from sport fishing… now provide evidence that hatcheries produce more fish than natural production would if managed properly?


garyk

sarcasm? Cool!


Phish_on

You a cynic? We need as many as we can get

[BuKuBass]

And game farms produce more roosters than Nature; but which would you rather hunt?

[ 01-29-2002: Message edited by: BuKuBass ]</p>

[Straydog]

Gone Fishin.......thank you.

Garyk...... I know, us wackos are to be feared!

***...... you first. Show me a hatchery that has been properly managed long enough to have developed a history and I will see what I can find for the evidence you request. :grin:

[Joe]

***,
Are you aware that the entire ocean Coho fishery is a result of hatchery raised fish. Oh yeah so are the Columbia and Willamette Spring Chinook fisheries. Is there any economic benefit from these fisheries?
Could these and other fisheries exist today without hatcheries given the current status of wild stocks?

[ssteelheadsteve]

Most prfessionals involved in the Salmon Industry on the science side will tell you that even if we close the Hatcheries,stop all fishing and return all habitat to a pre-columbian state the survival of Anadromous fish in the region will trend down.Don't believe it ? Then read the independant scientific committees review of the ESA as presented by NMFS.But then most of you don't believe that we have lost 36,000 species of plankton type organizims in the last 40 years or that there really is a hole in the ozone.Extinction is forever.Ask your local lonely frog.Have you noticed people in wetland areas poking around looking for things in your neighborhood ? There looking for stuff (critters) that for the most part do not exhist these days.

[ssteelheadsteve]

Most prfessionals involved in the Salmon Industry on the science side will tell you that even if we close the Hatcheries,stop all fishing and return all habitat to a pre-columbian state the survival of Anadromous fish in the region will trend down.Don't believe it ? Then read the independant scientific committees review of the ESA as presented by NMFS.But then most of you don't believe that we have lost 36,000 species of plankton type organizims in the last 40 years or that there really is a hole in the ozone.Extinction is forever.Ask your local lonely frog.Have you noticed people in wetland areas poking around looking for things in your neighborhood ? There looking for stuff (critters) that for the most part do not exhist these days.

[Point-of-Sale Clerk]

Straydog

OOHHHH That hurt, you cheated. You and I both know I would be very hard pressed to find a successful hatchery program any where in the world.
Cleaver turning the question around like that, ever thought of working with ODFW?
OOPS! Sorry, I forgot you have already joined the evil empire…

Joe

Good post, but if you take a more macroscopic view of our fisheries and the biological reasons why hatcheries have failed to mitigate rearing and spawning habitat loses you would perhaps see things differently. I suspect you may be viewing this biological system using an antiquated model. The following is a post of mine from another BB that may be useful:


“I have read your responses and I do appreciate the above average level of understanding you have regarding salmonid issues. You also appear to be interested enough to get involved and try to make a difference and for that I applaud your efforts. Unfortunately, your simplistic understanding of the salmonid lifecycle leaves you open to misinterpretation of the more sophisticated model of the forces that influence the number of returning adults. There is not a linear correlation between the number of hatchery smolts dropped in a river and the number of returning adult spawners. If it were a simple lifecycle, dumping more hatchery smolts would have created large returns in the past, and we all know that did not happen. The true limiting factor or “bottle neck” if you will in producing more numerous adult returns is more than likely the combination or interaction between the river estuary and favorable or un-favorable ocean conditions.”

“In other words if a river normally produced 50 thousand smolts for their out-migration to the estuary in the spring, the 50 thousand smolts that began the journey will be reduced not but a percentage of what started but reduced to the holding capacity of the estuary. If the estuary has enough food and habitat to support 10 thousand smolts passing through, it is unlikely that you can get 20 or 30 thousand to survive to the next stage of their journey. The open ocean conditions further influence returning adult numbers by allowing more or less of the surviving juvenals to survive to adulthood. Perhaps during a favorable PDO, of the 10 thousand smolts that survive the estuary maybe 5 thousand live to return to the river (that’s a 10 percent survival rate of smolts). During poor ocean conditions maybe only 1 thousand survive to return (that’s a 2 percent smolt survival rate). So you see it does not matter if you start with 50 thousand wild smolts or 250 thousand hatchery smolts it is the estuary and the ocean that determines the number of returning adults. Straydog is correct though, if rearing habitat is so reduced that the river can not provide at least the 10 thousand fish that the estuary can support than the river system is underutilized and could benefit from additional plantings of hatchery smolts, however that would more than likely be a minority of situations.”

“A simple and one of my favorite analogies is the sheepherder model of salmon production. In your version of a salmon rearing model, a sheepherder has two fields to raise his sheep in. One is his rearing field (the river), and the other is the growing field (the ocean). In your model the rearing field is small and treacherous while the growing field is boundless and contains an unlimited amount of food. Using your model one would only have to double the number of fish leaving the rearing field to double the number of returning fish… uh … I mean sheep. As you are probably aware, historically the more smolts that were dumped into the river the less adults returned.”

“The better sheepherder model is the mountain pasture version. A sheepherder has three fields each further up the mountain. The first one is the rearing field. The rearing field has both good and bad years that produce more or less sheep, but does not limit the total of returning adult sheep because the middle field has a very limited amount of food that always supports less sheep than what survive the rearing field. The middle field (estuary) is where the sheepherder must take his flock to in order to get to the highest field (the ocean) The estuary field only has enough food to support a fixed number of sheep. No matter how many extra sheep survive the rearing field, the estuary determines how many sheep (smolts) survive to the growing field. In good years the weather is warm and wet and the growing field has more food so more of the sheep that arrive from the estuary survive. In bad years less food is available so a smaller percentage of sheep survive in the growing field to become adults.”

“The ironic thing is that if ODFW was sent to help the sheepherder increase his production of adult sheep they would recommend a plan that would by-pass the rearing field and dump 10 time the number of poorly suited sheep into the estuary while reducing the overall size of the estuary and removing all fertilizers and nutrients needed to grow the grass. Because they increased the overall beginning of sheep to start with they would reason that adult harvest could also be increased 10 times thus reducing the number of returning adults needed to create the next years herd. Because the limiting factor is an issue they have never addressed, ODFW would only make things worse. Sort of like they are doing now huh?”

*** Clerk

[Phish_on]

Paraphrasing is fine, but presenting your own version as a quote from someone else ... is SLIMY. Sorry, it's SLIMY! Those quotation marks are not trivial.

But anyway ... if there are hatcheries on the table, EVERYONE needs to contact their reps and senators and tell them WHATEVER you think... You KNOW Oregon Trout will be in their face.

It's all about - - re-election! I'm such a #@$&^% cynic. :wink: