Save our Hatcheries - a dissenting view

[MooseTurd]

Jen,

Don’t get me wrong; I admire you for getting involved and fighting for your principles. I just think that your cause is misguided. Despite what you and many others believe, the path to restoring our wild runs is relatively straightforward and involves the following:

· Remove the unnecessary dams that impede fish migrations – replace lost capacity with conservation and other technologies such as gas fired generation
· Completely ban logging, grazing, mining, building and other harmful activities within riparian zones
· Remove gill nets from the Columbia and replace with selective harvest methods such as fish traps
· Completely overhaul or eliminate our antiquated hatchery program so it no longer impacts wild fish
· Leave enough water in the rivers for fish and strictly enforce existing water allocation laws
· Implement comprehensive habitat evaluation and restoration
· Implement comprehensive fish population monitoring
· Strictly enforce existing water quality statutes
. Establish critical salmon spawning and rearing sanctuaries where absolutely NO activity that can impact fish production is allowed (including fishing)

None of this is rocket science, nor will the implementation of these actions plunge us back into the dark ages as some have suggested. We simply lack the political will to do these things and I believe that hatcheries are a largely to blame for this. As long as interests that are in conflict with wild fish can point to hatcheries and say: “See look at all the fish in the river – there’s no problem”, nothing will change. It’s time we discard our outdated paradigms and look for real solutions to our wild fish crisis.

-MT

[ 02-02-2003, 01:06 PM: Message edited by: MooseTurd ]

[TheRogue]

Don’t get me wrong; I admire you for getting involved and fighting for your principles. I just think that your cause is misguided. Despite what you and many others believe, the path to restoring our wild runs is relatively straightforward and involves the following:
<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helv">You're exactly right on all counts. However, I'd like to counter with the following:

1. Bad economy...all of the things you mention would adversely affect the economy either directly or indirectly, both short term and long term in some areas. It would do large damage to the coastal areas already beaten up by the owl, murrelet, and NAFTA (cheap Canadian lumber)

2. Priorities....I'm a lot more concerned about schools and public services, as are the vast majority of Oregonians, along with their legislators. Pretty unlikely to get major reform through the system at this point in time.

3. Politics...remember, politicians blow through like the wind, and we've had tremendous returns the last few years. Not likely to get much support from most when there's lots of fish right now.

4. Public perception...there are many people who believe there is no difference between hatchery and wild fish, regardless of the scientific evidence.

5. Public perception....flip side. There are many people who are TOTALLY against harvest of native steelhead (and coho), regardless of biological opinions and run totals.

6. Endangered Species Act...nearly impossible to get something de-listed, regardless of how well the species rebounds. How many years would we be just practicing catch-and-release on many(most) rivers??

Again, I agree with what you're saying, and we need to move in those directions. Some of them are pretty simple;
</font><ul type="square"> <font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helv">banning commercial gillnetting (sorry UG)</font> <font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helv">enforcing EXISTING rules and regulations</font> <font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helv">removing old unnecessary dams and diversions (thanks StrayDog!!)</font> <font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helv">removal of the non-basin hatchery strains of fish</font>[/list]<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helv">

For some of your things however, there is just neither the money, the time, the will, or the need (as I see it) for doing it.

Remember, most hatcheries are for mitigation purposes, NOT for re-establishing native runs.

TR

[ 02-02-2003, 01:49 PM: Message edited by: TheRogue ]

[Jennie@ifish]

If I believed it were possible....

If I thought that it were that simple....

I'd be all over it!!!!


But I don't.

:depressed:

I do think that we should always work in that direction, while still maintaining our hatcheries.

Jen

[David Johnson]

MT, you are so very right, all those things you sighted would bring back the native runs. But, like Jen said on a different post, when someone can turn back history to before western civilazation changed the intire environment of the NW than it's not going to happen for the reason's TheRogue mentioned.

[ 02-02-2003, 02:12 PM: Message edited by: David Johnson ]

[MooseTurd]

Bad economy...all of the things you mention would adversely affect the economy either directly or indirectly, both short term and long term in some areas. It would do large damage to the coastal areas already beaten up by the owl, murrelet, and NAFTA (cheap Canadian lumber)
<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helv">With the exception of mainstem dam removal I don't see why any of the other items would have large-scale economic impacts. Certainly there would be localized impacts to very specific resource users, but the overall effect on the NW economy would likely be very modest.

With respect to funding and spending priorities; money for new programs such as monitoring and habitat restoration could be redirected from existing hatchery programs.

Regarding politics and public perception your point is well taken. But that is exactly my point; as long as the public (angling and non-angling alike) is placated by the false promises of easy technology fixes (like hatcheries), there will be no political will to upset the status quo. To illustrate my point I ask you – have you ever known a single timber, agricultural, industrial or business interest to publicly oppose hatchery policy in Oregon? Think about it…

[Flatfish]

MT,

I agree that many of the items on your list may/ will help restore native fish runs.How much money and how much of an imposition it is on the people of this region counts. Therefore some of the items on your list would meet with strong opposition from supporters.

In your post you say that we should "remove gillnets from the Columbia". What about the 15 or other commercial fishing intersets chasing these fish from Alaska to their Spawning grounds? They are catching "Our" fish too you know.

I wonder if most folks have an idea of how much pressure there is from commercials across the continent to keep the hatcheries open. Because there sure as heck are a LOT more guys chasing these fish than the Indians and a handfull of lower river boaters.

I understand that you are looking at saving wild runs. Your list is a good one. But each and every item you have on your list woukld be met with a HUGE resistance from well funded and organized groups who have a vested interest. That is one of UG's points in the nets post, if I understand correctly. It is my point too. They are already organized. We have money. Together the fish would benefit.

Also another point to ponder, if we shut down that much commerce and industry, breach the dams, and make each change you list. Do you actually think that sports anglers could continue to fish for any of these fish? I doubt the people of the NW would allow it, given the huge imposition it would become just to help some of the freshwater habitat end of things. Even if we did all of these things, if the fish get to an unfriendly ocean they will either be eaten, ot starve. Then it would appear to the public that all of their sacrifices were in vain. Unhappy public equals change in policy. But the public does not always understand that a low return for 5 or even 10 years is a normal cycle.I do not think that the public would be willing to wait even that long.

This post is not a flame. But reality is politics runs this. Money runs politics.Not in crooked ways, but in financing laywers to lean on our reps so they understand what we want and take it into consideration when there are decisions made. The fish hatcheries were created to offset the harvest.They were not created for sportsfisherman( initially at least). Nobody here wants good native returns than me. But the reality of it is how much are the people of the NW willing to sacrifice to help a fish? I still feel that a strong lobby representing the sporties is the best way to get the things that will help fish populations. IMHO the commercials are the best way to fasttrack us into the public eye.

I do applaud your energy. But feel that some of the items on your list are unreaistic ( much like my hopes for a coalition between commercials and sporties). I do not know if the gov's main concern is returning native fish numbers to their historic high levels. But if it is, they sure seem to be a bit off track. But thats what happens when politics get lobbied.

Mark and the dog.

[skein]

I'd like to see you get a river, enough $$ to put in place the things you envision, and the years you need to let the plan unfold.

I think at the end of that time you'd be blaming something else - Asian fishermen, global warming, acid rain, who knows? I don't think your plan would work, but I also don't think we'll ever know, simply because there are so many variables. It would be too easy to simply shift the blame.

I'll be up in Salem supporting the hatcheries because at least they are working. Everything else is just pie in the sky.

Skein

[BillH]

MT:
I agree heartily with most of your philosophy but for a couple of big points of reality.
First, we are not going to see the end of gillnets in ours or the next lifetime so we might as well work with as opposed to against the gillnetters so that compromises can be reached to minimize impacts on key wild strains while allowing them to continue their firmly implanted tradition.
Also, and perhaps more important, we need to maintain hatchery programs if we are to continue the tradition of sport angling. Considering our present population, there is no way we can have consumptive angling on purely wild fish. Without consumptive opportunities, we will lose angler interest and thus license fees which support wild and hatchery fish management. I truly believe that the answer to the hatchery issue is to upgrade the genetics of hatchery salmonids. Our hatcheries need to carefully utilize basin specific stocks.
In the cases of hatcheries which serve multiple small basins, each group need be separated from egg take forward and spawning adults need to be trapped from the individual streams.

That's my take on the whole mess we are now in! :shrug:

Bill H

[Jennie@ifish]

This thread is precious to me!
Please, please, please, hold your temper and point out your views without emotional responses that could ruin and perhaps close it!!!

This is an excellent opportunity to learn and exchange viewpoints.

I have heard so many people put down Oregon Trout, or wild fish advocates, without HEARING them.

I have heard so many Wild Fish advocates put down pro hatchery people, without HEARING them.

Is there ever a vague hope we can hear one another without anger? Is there a chance that we could ever work together? I don't know... But I personally believe that each interest has a common bond. We love (and are passionate about) our rivers, our streams, our oceans, and the creatures that inhabit them.
Jen

[ 02-02-2003, 02:52 PM: Message edited by: Jennie@ifish ]

[dogfishboy]

MT, I agree and graemlins/applause.gif your ideas. I feel the issues before us are far more complex and involved than they appear on the surface.

We MUST strive to achieve ALL the points you listed. However, It is VITAL we support, fund and maintain a healthy and responsible hatchery system, until such time as it is no longer needed.

The optimistic dfb, hopes all of the things you listed will happen in our lifetime. The pessimistic dfb, has little hope this will happen. We must "...keep hope alive!" tho.

dfb

[MooseTurd]

But each and every item you have on your list woukld be met with a HUGE resistance from well funded and organized groups <font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helv">Sure, there is well-organized opposition to each of the actions that I outlined. That’s to be expected; any change to the status quo will be met with resistance – that’s human nature. So do we just roll over and accept our lot in life or do we organize, inform and counter that resistance?

For those of you that still cling to the belief that hatcheries are the answer I refer you to the plight of Atlantic Salmon on our eastern seaboard; their hatcheries have failed and wild stock no longer exist in sufficient quantities to resurrect the fisheries – welcome to our future in 50 years or less.

[MooseTurd]

I agree Jen. The issues discussed in this thread are far too important to be hijacked by petty name-calling or closed minds. As an avowed advocate of wild fish (and a proud member of Oregon Trout) Let me be the first to sign onto your non-aggression pact.

[dogfishboy]

MT, The failure of hatcheries on the east coast - as I see it- is due to factors other than the hatcheries themselves. Acid rain and a couple hundred years of habitat destruction more than we have had are just a few examples. The latest PBS salmon documentary seemed to illustrate several of these points.

[ 02-02-2003, 03:39 PM: Message edited by: dogfishboy ]

[skein]

Jennie, I suppose a lot of your post was directed toward me, but I really have trouble with the "return to the way it was" ideas.

Let's look at some of them:

Remove the unnecessary dams that impede fish migrations – replace lost capacity with conservation and other technologies such as gas fired generation

Which dams? Who decides? You? Me? The fishermen? Everybody?

Completely ban logging, grazing, mining, building and other harmful activities within riparian zones

We can't just stop at the riparian zones. When the river is flooding (without the dams, remember) and the folks up on the hill at Oregon Health Sciences University flush their toilets and the raw sewage runs in the river, it's going to have an effect. And they aren't in the "riparian zone" unless somebody's going to do some serious re-zoning. And if you're going to stop "building," then you better figure on not having any more babies, and if you do, tell them not to have any babies. Not likely.

Leave enough water in the rivers for fish and strictly enforce existing water allocation laws

Does that include drought cycles? If so, who do we blame? Who do we cut off? Who decides? Let's not go there, because that one has been ridden to death already.

Establish critical salmon spawning and rearing sanctuaries where absolutely NO activity that can impact fish production is allowed (including fishing)

Where? How big an area? The whole Columbia? The whole basin? Or just the five rivers that feed Tillamook Bay?

We spend a lot of time touting the genetic strength and diversity of our native stocks, and how the hatchery fish are just sitting ducks for a parasite or disease (like whirling disease) to come in and decimate them. But man has already done that. Virtually wiped them out. And now we are undoing - through technology - the damage we've done. Perfect? No. But pretty darn good judging from the pictures I saw on Ifish last year.

I'm not against wild fish. I'm not even against your ideas. I would sincerely support applying those strategies to a river to see if they really would work. Find a river - I'll donate some money to the cause. But accept it if it doesn't work.

Skein

[dawhunt]

I'm sad to say this but after all the damage we've done to the columbia river and her trib's
we need the hatchery's more then ever.I agree they should only use native fish from the river there on,I know Ore. is starting to do this I don't know if Wa. is or not to be honest,I think they are ?, I know canada started doing this years ago.

.The fisheries are so screwed up now because of inbreeding for all these yrs that its going to take yrs and yrs to straighten out the mess there in.I honestly believe there isn't a true native in the Washougal anymore and I'm sure it the same on many other rivers. I don't blame just the gillnetters for the proplem its bad land practises and dams and pollution and US !! There's more people fishing now then ever before.

We need to quit fighting amongst ourselves and work towards improveing the watershed and do away with any dam we can and yes
we can return the runs to what they use to be.
I don't see that happening in my time it took all this time to mess things and its not going to change overnight.
we need to start working harder towards stream improvement,better logging practises,
quit building homes on the edge of rivers and streams.I guess what I'm trying to say is we really need to clean up our act or it will be to late to change things.
Bob :shrug:

[slamin salmon]

It would seem that a step by step approach is needed. The key factor would then be getting the fish here in the first place. With all the nations that rely on fish as there main food source that would be the starting battle. Win that then proceed on. I remember something about the USA and CANADA tryibg to work out a deal with fish catch #. The CANADAs' put forth a proposal ans the US said NO! The CANADIANS went well we didn't have to give anything so now we won't. Does anyone else remember this ? Keep the lines of communication going people. This is a lot to think on with good and valid points on both sides. I see with give and merg on both sides how could it not work out? SS

[Straydog]

Great thread........... the key to bringing about change is education, education, education.

It is so much more complex than the average person realizes.

It is important to realize that just like most things, not all dams are created equal. The fact is many are not flood control dams and in some cases, actually make flooding worse on the upstream side.

Also, I believe the spawning and habitat reserves being refered to are in headwater stretches of the tribs., not downtown Portland.

Is it practical to think we will disassemble the Metro area and bring it back significantly? No. Does this mean we should not strive to protect and improve those areas that we can? No.

The fact that opposition will be encountered and will have to be dealt with is absolutely no reason to loose sight of the goal of having as many naturally produced fish as absolutely possible in all waterhsheds.

The day we give up and resign ourselves to depending totally on hatcheries is the day we lose in a big, big way.

Human error at Cole Rivers Hatchery caused the death of 200,000 Spring Chinook fry three years ago. Human errror with a fish trap for the hatchery caused the death of several hundred wild adult Steelhead in the Applegate system a year or two ago. Human error created the stranding and death of unknown thousands of salmon smolt by too rapidly dropping the Rogue River level last Spring.

We may have the technology to somewhat mitigate our errors, but it is our arrogance in terms of being smarter than ma nature and technology being the answer that got us where we are today. I have trouble having faith in the belief that this same technological arrogance will fix our problems. :shrug:

[Thumper]

Moosie --- You must believe in the tooth fairy too.....

You list nine action items. None are even remotely feasible. Nice try.

[ 02-02-2003, 04:41 PM: Message edited by: Thumper ]

[Jennie@ifish]

My post was directed at no one yet. :smile:

So far so good!

Jen

[Stew]

I like this thread! graemlins/applause.gif I think the way the hatcheries,especially on the north coast, are run needs to be changed! The Alsea strain "cookie cutters" are not a good fish for these watersheds. The future must be in the wild broodstock programs if we are to have harvestable runs in the future. Hopefully these broodstock fish will continue to be one generation removed from wild stock and so far the results have been good.
The elimination of what these hatcheries are currently producing along with habitat restoration should be our goal. The breeching of the dams is somethng I know very little about so I won't comment.
I sure wish Bill H. would post more because what he has to say is very thoughtful and intelligent.

[HOGTIDE]

I think he has to ask Jennie for permission, first :grin:

[Jennie@ifish]

Bill hates computers. :smile:
--but now he loves you, Shane. graemlins/hearton.gif

Jen

[MooseTurd]

Okay, now we’re cookin’. Let me start by countering some of the following points:

“The failure of hatcheries on the east coast - as I see it- is due to factors other than the hatcheries themselves.”

Agreed, hatcheries are not the root cause of the failure of east coast salmon fisheries. My point is that without adequate and proper seed stock, even the most state-of-the-art hatchery program is powerless to reverse this trend. If the Pacific Northwest continues to let its native populations decline, we’ll be faced with the same fate.

“Which dams? Who decides? You? Me? The fishermen? Everybody?”

I propose we start with the lower Snake River dams, Conduit dam on the White Salmon, Pelton dam on the Deschutes, Toketee dam on the N. Umpqua, and the lower dams on the Elwa. I’d even go so far as to suggest looking at removing at least one Columbia River dam such as the John Day. Who decides? Well, our various governing and legislative institutions with input from scientists, stakeholders and the general public.

“We can't just stop at the riparian zones…And if you're going to stop "building," then you better figure on not having any more babies, and if you do, tell them not to have any babies.”

While I concur that there exist practices that are harmful to salmon that occur outside riparian areas, development practices within riparian areas are among the most damaging and the easiest to correct. Prohibiting building within riparian areas will not prevent people from having babies – it will only prevent them from living within a riparian area.

"Does that include drought cycles? If so, who do we blame? Who do we cut off? Who decides? Let's not go there, because that one has been ridden to death already."

Yes, managing water for fish and wildlife is especially critical during drought periods. Who do we blame for a drought? Nature I suppose. Who do we cut off? All users have to sacrifice for the common good. We don’t have a choice about going there because this issue will only grow worse as competition for scarce resources becomes more acute.

“The fisheries are so screwed up now because of inbreeding for all these yrs that its going to take yrs and yrs to straighten out the mess there in.”

I think you would be surprised to find out how resilient our native populations really are and how quickly they can recover if you just give them a chance. That point was so elegantly made by the rapid reestablishment of wild fish on the Toutle River soon after the explosion of St. Helens. There’s more native capacity existing in our rivers than most of us are willing to admit. But it is finite and once it’s exhausted it’s gone forever.

“It would seem that a step by step approach is needed. The key factor would then be getting the fish here in the first place...Win that then proceed on.”

I certainly understand the appeal of this kind of logic. The basic flaw is that if we have to do everything in lock step then nothing will get done – extractive interests will say “clean up your harvest practices first”, sport fishermen will say “get the gill nets out of the river first”, the commercial fishermen will say “solve the high seas salmon interception problems first” and so on and so on. The reality is that all of these things need to happen and there is no reason that most of them can’t be done in parallel.

Great discussion. Let’s keep it going…

[ 02-02-2003, 06:57 PM: Message edited by: MooseTurd ]

[Jennie@ifish]

Imagine we had two rivers with surrounding ecosystems to experiment with.
All people on the land agreed to everything we said, since we are king of these rivers.

One person from Oregon Trout had one....

One person from Tillamook Anglers had another.

Who would be most successful? What measures success?

How would you begin to manage "your" river?
What is the first thing you would do? I want a new board game called "MY RIVER" Kind of like Sim City!

Interesting....

Jen

[MooseTurd]

You list nine action items. None are even remotely feasible. Nice try.
<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helv">Do you vote?

[MooseTurd]

One person from Oregon Trout had one....

One person from Tillamook Anglers had another.
<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helv">Jen, I prefer to think of them as "our" rivers. And I include the native flora and fauna as an intergal part of that constituency.

[Deleted User]

Accept or discard the following as you wish.

The Pacific Salmon issue, of which hatcheries are but a part, is regarded by many as the single most complicated natural resource issue in North America, and perhaps in the world.

There are no simple solutions. If anyone harbors the thought that there are, view the wisdom of Oscar Wilde

"The pure and simple truth is rarely pure and never simple."

Because there are so many different views of what is “right”, hatcheries are being examined by some of the best fishery scientists in this Nation and Canada to determine their place in the overall picture.

In the meantime, the highest probability seems to be that hatcheries will continue to exist. If you are “pro-hatcheries” seek funding for them, but ask for funding to evaluate their effectiveness as well. If you are "anti-hatcheries", seek only funding for hatchery evaluation. If you don’t know what is right, let the Oregon (or Washington) Fish and Wildlife Commission decide for you what constitutes an appropriate stance on the issue at this time (that is what they are there for, and they have competent professional biologists advising them.)

"Let us not look back in anger, nor forward in fear, but around in awareness."

[fishbait]

I think that "Salmon Without Rivers" should be a required prerequisit in order to post on this thread. If you haven't read it, you should, then you will understand what has caused the decline of the West Coast salmon stocks.

[dogfishboy]

What a truly good idea, FB. I haven't and will. Could you see an Ifish Book Club that reads and discusses books and topics relevant to fisheries issues? I could.

[Jennie@ifish]

I have a signed copy.

You can order it here! (http://service.bfast.com/bfast/click?bfmid=2181&sourceid=830252&bfpid=1559633611&bfmtype=book)

[STGRule]

DFB: Outstanding idea. Maybe once every three months?. That may give busy people a chance to read the "Book of the Quarter". We could use a thread on LIG or if enough people could be there at the same time, chat.

[rob allen]

Moose **** is 100% correct..

and hatcheries have NOT!!!!!!! provided stable , qood quality fisheries anywhere that I know of.. They didn't anywhere for winter steelhead this year. a quick look at our rivers solves the habitat part of this easily.. We have rivers with absolutely awsome habitat and very few wild fish. Why is that?? They have good habitat are not getting harvested.. then where are they?? They are being breed out of exsistence by hatchery processes that inspite of all the science and talk or reform are still doing the things they have done for 50 years..

Here this now it is the only fact any one needs to know about this issue.... Without wild salmon and steelhead there is NO future for our fish or our fishing.... If we don't restore whats left now we will not have anything in the future PERIOD!!!!!!!!!!!!!! hatcheries will not provide anyone here with long term fishing opportunities and have never been used nore is there evidence that they can be used to restore wild populations of salmon..
In short ( something i am bad at) No saving wild fish now then no fishing in the future...

Moose turds point is that we need to organise and NOW for that to happen people have to give up the ideas of killing all the fish they want because the hatchery is there to supply them.

Again one last time.. We HAVE to save the wild fish of we want to be fishing in 10 years.. That cannot be done with hatchreies opperating the way they currently are...

Salmon restoration is easy..
1. don't kill the wild ones
2. protect and restore their habitat
3. don't breed them out of exsistence

Thats it..nothing more.. nothing could be easier.. if we had the political will..

A word about that too.. Our polititians are focused on the economy, schools ect. They don't know and don't care about the salmon issue. Thats a huge advantage to us because we know more than they do they will listen to us on this issue IF we will make our voice heard..
The future of our fish are in OUR hands... Mine. jenny's, Moose turds the rogue's OUR hands if we do not act their demise is also on out hands...

[BrionLutz]

TheRogue,

&lt;&lt; Bad economy...all of the things you mention would adversely affect the economy either directly or indirectly, both short term and long term in some areas. It would do large damage to the coastal areas already beaten up by the owl, murrelet, and NAFTA cheap Canadian lumber &gt;&gt;

Incorrect. The Rand Study is clear, restoring the salmon has huge positive economic impact.

http://www.salmon.org

The economics are way on the side of salmon restoration.

Brion

[MooseTurd]

...if we shut down that much commerce and industry, breach the dams, and make each change you list. Do you actually think that sports anglers could continue to fish for any of these fish? I doubt the people of the NW would allow it... <font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helv">Bring back just 20% of our historical wild salmon and steelhead runs and there will be more sport and harvest opportunity than most of us have seen in a lifetime. Yes, I think anglers will continue to fish...

[Fish-n-Fever]

There are many things the hatcheries have NOT done to help the native fish but ... one thing they have done to help is to keep enough fish in the many systems so people like me and probably 95% or more of you out there can catch them and become interested in an other wise of little or no interest fact that the wild fish need help. Let me explain that. No matter how noble one may think themselves to take up the wild fish cause they (as I said before 95%) would not have the interest they do in this cause if it were not for hatcheries and the fish they keep raising for us to harvest. Speaking for myself and I'm sure a lot of you out there if you will admitt it if not for the hatchery fish that I can and do catch my interest in salmon would not be much at all. Call me what you will for that but it is simply the truth and I know many of you can relate to this. Because of my love to fish for these take home fish I joined this board to learn more and better ways to fish. Since being here I have learned much more and part of that is about the wild fish and their struggle. Had it not been for the hatchery fish to first grab my interest I would not be here and the stories of the wild salmon in the papers would be just one more pass over article. I expect to get a bit of flack over this but it is the truth in my life. I hope you understand this as I intended it.
Ron

[Stew]

Moose ****
What is your opinion on wild broodstock programs?

[skein]

Okay, I'm interested. Show me some numbers.

Bring back just 20% of our historical wild salmon and steelhead runs and there will be more sport and harvest opportunity than most of us have seen in a lifetime.

Understand that I am interested, but far from convinced. Simplistic statements do not further your cause:

Salmon restoration is easy..
1. don't kill the wild ones
2. protect and restore their habitat
3. don't breed them out of exsistence


Sorta like:
The answer to our energy crunch is easy..
1. Harness the power of the sun
2. Beam the energy via microwave to do away with the ugly wires
3. Make government manage it wisely

Hard to do? Then make them read the "Book of the Quarter." If you haven't read it, you should, then you will understand what has caused the decline of the West Coast salmon stocks...

Why is it I don't believe that?

"For every complex question there is a simple answer - and it's wrong."

Skein - who really would like to see numbers.

[MooseTurd]

Okay, I'm interested. Show me some numbers.
<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helv">Historic salmon and steelhead runs in the Columbia were estimated to be between 16-20 million fish strong. An annual run today of 3.2 - 4 million wild fish (20%) would most certainly support a viable comsumption fishery.

[MooseTurd]

What is your opinion on wild broodstock programs?<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helv">That’s a good question Shane. My feelings are that the closer hatchery practices can mimic natural processes and the level of diversity found in natural environments, the more successful they will likely be. To that end, utilizing wild boodstock is certainly a step in the right direction. I read an interesting article in the Oregonian several weeks ago about how hatchery practices were evolving in order to become more wild-fish compatible. There was one paragraph where the author was describing how some hatcheries are experimenting with raceways that try to closely approximate natural streams, but that it was time consuming and expensive to maintain such infrastructure. Reading that I couldn’t help but wonder why none of these hatchery managers were considering the most obvious solution when it is right in front of their noses – the rivers themselves.

Taken to its logical conclusion the best way to approximate the natural fish-rearing environment is to utilize the natural environment itself.

[skein]

Moose,

I got the numbers, but where did you get them. I want to verify the source.

Skein

[Lepper]

Oh to dream... And I think that is what that all is, is a dream. I don't really invision to many if any of the ideas to improve fish will ever happen...

And why not just redo the dams to make them more fish friendly. you know they can do that. Comes down to the little thing called money. And until we get a lot more of it in our state, Fish will be towards the bottom.

[MooseTurd]

I got the numbers, but where did you get them. I want to verify the source.
<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helv">I recall seeing those numbers in the book that Jen recommended "Salmon Without Rivers". Her previous post has a link to where you can aquire it.

[ 02-02-2003, 08:44 PM: Message edited by: MooseTurd ]

[Straydog]

Skein,

Here is one source of numbers....


Natl. Geographic - Columbia Salmon (http://www.nationalgeographic.com/earthpulse/columbia/gallery1.html)

I did a Google search of "Historic numbers of Columbia Salmon" and found many links to info....

[dogfishboy]

I like where your going with this, STGRule. Chat and a thread could also be used to help folks with questions that might arise WHILE reading the book. Not sure how we decide on which book to read, perhaps a pole.

RT, or perhaps I should use your full moniker so not to confuse you with...you know. Unless you are? :wink: :grin: just kidding!

Anyway, Reel Tired, you said,

"In the meantime, the highest probability seems to be that hatcheries will continue to exist. If you are “pro-hatcheries” seek funding for them, but ask for funding to evaluate their effectiveness as well. If you are "anti-hatcheries", seek only funding for hatchery evaluation. If you don’t know what is right, let the Oregon (or Washington) Fish and Wildlife Commission decide for you what constitutes an appropriate stance on the issue at this time (that is what they are there for, and they have competent professional biologists advising them.)"

and did so very well. I couldn't agree more.

I would add that we also need to push for hatcheries to be redesigned. Much like Zoos around the nation have been over the last decade. Zoos have moved from concrete jungles, much like the current hatchery design, and have looked at the need of the various species and designed accordingly.

I believe there are some tribal hatcheries in Washington State (if someone knows what I'm referring to please elaborate) that are taking into account what juvenile fish need to survive in the wild and mimicking that environment in their design of rearing ponds. If we were to combine this with what BillH said,

"I truly believe that the answer to the hatchery issue is to upgrade the genetics of hatchery salmonids. Our hatcheries need to carefully utilize basin specific stocks. In the cases of hatcheries which serve multiple small basins, each group need be separated from egg take forward and spawning adults need to be trapped from the individual streams,"

this might enable us to have what I called earlier a healthy and responsible hatchery system. I too wish Bill would share more of his knowledge and insight.

A "gentlier and kinder" hatchery system should help until the dams come tumbling down; and the acid rain subsides; and pollutants stop flowing into our rivers and streams; and the riparian areas are no longer threatened by development and extractive resource management, and other nations stop over harvesting at sea etc, etc. My point is as I said earlier, it ain't as easy as we think. If it was we would have resolved many of these issues and problems long ago.

I do believe that a healthy salmon population will carry significant economic clout. The problem we run into there is that it is bioregional, and the further you get away from the resource the less clout it carries. Dams and electricity are far-reaching and so is pollution, and changing the harvesting practices of other nations is beyond me. Just another example of the complexities involved.

PLEASE, I would love for you or anyone to show us how this is accomplished in my lifetime.

Salmon, as we know them today, have shown themselves to be an incredibly resilient species and have endured a tremendous amount in the last 10,000 years. So I do believe there is hope.

[AnglersRental]

"Craig and Hacker on The History and Development of the Fisheries of the Columbia River, published in Bulletin 32 of the U.S. Bureau of Fisheries, 1940, (2) has long been acknowledged as the classic work in this field. Craig and Hacker thoroughly cover all aspects of the river’s fisheries from pre-history until 1938. Complete with numerous tables of catch statistics and analyses, the Craig and Hacker report frequently is cited as a primary source for information on the salmon fisheries of the Columbia River, sometimes, unfortunately, taken out of context from the meaning and intent of the original study.

However, the original report by Joseph Craig and Robert Hacker as published in 1940 is a model of clarity and brevity, comprising a total of only 83 pages in length, and being remarkably free of jargon for a technical study. It is well worth reading in its entirety for the sense of the impending challenges facing the salmon fisheries at the outset of the dam building era on the Columbia River. Craig and Hacker outline with considerable accuracy the major issues that continue to affect the river’s salmonid species and the fisheries dependent on them to this day.

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

The World’s Greatest Salmon Stream

The historic viability of the salmon fishery on the Columbia River may be seen from the fact that the river’s native salmon runs supported an ancient and intensive Indian fishery for thousands of years prior to contact with Euro-Americans. The Long Narrows of the Columbia was the oldest continuously inhabited site in North America before being flooded by The Dalles Dam. Archaeological evidence of human habitation at The Dalles goes back nearly 10,000 years. The evidence further suggests the Early stage culture at this site was dependent on fish by 7,500 years before the present. The Late stage, believed to be a salmon-fishing culture with continuity into the historical period, began more than 6,000 years ago.

It is important in understanding the extent of the native fishery on the Columbia River to realize that it had strong commercial as well as ritual and sustenance components. Lewis and Clark and other early observers in the region noted an extensive trade in dried and pounded salmon, packed in baskets lined with fish skin. Dried-pounded salmon was a standard item in the regional trade network, which provided winter sustenance to peoples far removed from the Columbia River, both up and down the coast, and as far away as the Great Plains.

Craig and Hacker’s study cites population figures for the Indians of the Columbia basin during the nineteenth century derived from Charles Henry Carey, History of Oregon, 1922. Carey acknowledged the rapid decrease in the region’s native populations following the introduction of European diseases. However, his figures are largely based on Lewis and Clark, who came to the region after the population declines had begun. There is good reason to suspect that 50,000 people in the region prior to contact may in fact be considerably low. Based on ethnographic observations of dietary habits in the region, Craig and Hacker reach the following conclusion:

Therefore it appears to be well within the realms of possibility that these Indians had an average per capita consumption of salmon of 1 pound per day during the entire year. If such were the case, and the population were 50,000 people, their annual salmon catch would have been about 18,000, 000 pounds per year. During 1933, the commercial catch of all species of salmon and steelhead trout on the Columbia River was approximately 26,000,000 pounds; therefore, it is evident that in primitive times the Indians may well have taken an annual catch that was a very significant proportion of the commercial catch today. (circa 1940)

Even though the primitive Indian catch might have been of some such magnitude as that estimated above, it did not represent as great a proportional strain on the spawning population as its relationship to the present catch would indicate. That is because it must be remembered that under present conditions many miles of spawning streams have been cut off by dams so that they are no longer available to the migratory fish, that irrigation diversions take an enormous toll of the young migrants when they are on their way to the
sea, and that pollution and other changed conditions have made many streams less suitable for salmon. (6)

In the context of their discussion, the meaning of Craig and Hacker’s conclusions about the precontact Indian fishery are quite clear: that the salmon runs of the Columbia were fished intensively by Native Americans for centuries at levels approaching the catch of the post contact industrial fishery, and that this intensive fishery was prosecuted without apparent damage to the river’s salmon runs because such intensive harvest was not accompanied by environmental degradation.

This is a conclusion that is often overlooked in reviews of the Columbia River fishery. Further, there is a certain probability that the rapid drop in post-contact native populations in portions of the Columbia basin during the nineteenth century (7) may well have resulted in elevated salmon populations by the time of the early non-native commercial and industrial fishery. Though it does not justify the excesses and waste characteristic of the early non-native commercial fishery, the salmon canning boom of the 1860s through the 1880s was very possibly coincidental with rebounding salmonid populations due to the dramatic reduction in the Indian fishery during the preceding decades. The salmon runs of the Columbia River during this period were not boundless, but they probably were larger than normal."

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

I have no idea what the precommercial run numbers were, but this caught my eye, and was relevent to what you all are talknig about.

UG

[dogfishboy]

MT, I see you posted something about hatcheries mimicking natural enviroments as I was composing my post above. I would be very interested in further information you might have and where one could get it.

[Chukrchaser]

As my weak mind understands MT's proposals --Blast the dams and control the water through the droughts by sacrificing usage (amoung others)-- a couple of questions arise--

Does anybody have a clue as to how long this Utopian restoration of the riparian habitat would take? (hint: how old is an "old Growth" forest?)

Removing the dams is the tip of that iceberg--

I don't know the numbers but my guess is, the Klamath basin issues of the last two years will pale in comparison when we must shut the irrigation off to Or, Wa and Idaho -- we aren't talking hay here we are talking wheat and potatoes and fruit.

As has been brought up we may not have the power of some of the special interest groups but we have our vote -- couldn't agree more -- what percentage voted the last election? And to get some perspective -- Add together the Lumber, Mining, Power, Agriculture groups just to start with to get a peak at the 500 pound Gorilla opponent.

Long range dreams make us all warm and fuzzy but the reality is the best we can hope for is mitigation -- that may include some "wild river" restoration on some small watershed -- but blow dams on the Snake or Columbia?

I don't want to admit defeat -- but reality bites.

[fishing is life]

i do believe that hatcheries today are starting to get a clue. the broodstock is a bright hope. the only apprehension i have to that is the broodstock will be in more direct competition with the natives unless they can seperate them. the other thing we will have to get used to is that most hatchery runs will be at least two months later than what we have been accustomed to.

on the hatcheries trying to mimick the natural environment, i heard that many hatcheries are now painting the bottom of rearing ponds to resemble rocks. that way the smolts coloring will be darker and make them less vulnerable to predation. sure beats the concrete floors of the past.

[Flatfish]

So you want to tell me the same state that refused a 112 dollar a year tax increase to fund schools will accept the inevitable much larger costs of blowing up dams, and killing present industries and future development within agriculture, logging, and development, and commerce along the river if the runs are restored to 4 or 5 million fish a year. Oh yeah, and we do not fish commercially for our restored runs. Right.

You want to explain to me how the fish will help offset all of those economic forces? I live in reality. Here on earth. Zip code is in my profile. I do not know the address for Never Never Land,where you are apparently from.

112 dollars=no.

Thousands of dollars per year less the conveniences lost for fish restoration=yes.

I now understand where to file your opinion.

Mark and the dog.

[ 02-02-2003, 09:58 PM: Message edited by: Flatfish ]

[MooseTurd]

the best we can hope for is mitigation <font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helv">Frankly I'm surprised by the position that many on this board have taken on this issue, i.e. the root causes of our wild salmon crisis are so intractable that they are not worth fighting.

Let me ask all of you who believe that restoring our wild salmon heritage is nothing more than a pipe dream - if hatchery mitigation were not an option, would you still feel the same way? Would you still give up any hope that your children or grandchildren will be able to enjoy what you have been priviledged to experience? Would you still be so willing to write off our wild salmon?

[Straydog]

Flatfish,

You are oversimplifying and comparing apples and oranges.

You are talking a state budget and federal issues of Salmon.

The cost of removing dams and altering resource extraction and development in riparian zones would pale in comparison to the litigation costs to the tribes should we not meet our obligations to them.

Plus, you must consider the economic positives if such changes were to come about. Jobs created removing dams, removing sediment, doing habitat restoration, economic impact of enhanced recreation, increase in jobs in rail and other transportation avenues.

Again, it is very complex on both sides of the arguement.

[Flatfish]

Look S-dog,

I am all for fish. Natives especially. But the costs, measured in lost revenue, to blow em up and stop the way we have done business for hunderds of years, are astronomical. The economic impact would be the death knell to Oregon.

I have donated both time and money for these fish. I care more about native steelhead more than any other. But I am rational. The federal government would never fund these measures. Ever. That is reality. I could think out loud and wonder "what if..." but that is fantasy. I wonder what I can do for the fish in reality.

As far as state vs. federal funding, do you think that any politic (who really wants to be re-elected,and not much else matters) would take such a radical position on this matter?

If you want to plant trees along a stream. Or pitch dead salmon into a river. Teach kids about the lives of fish. Or even fin clip. Swell. Count me in. But if your reality includes knocking down dams, ending much logging and all of the rest of it on that list, then I question your judgement.

Fish I spend a lot on. But I spend a lot more on housing.

Mark and the right maxillary dog.

[MooseTurd]

You want to explain to me how the fish will help offset all of those economic forces? I live in reality. Here on earth. Zip code is in my profile. I do not know the address for Never Never Land,where you are apparently from. <font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helv">I guess I refuse to give up hope that humans can co-exist with their natural environment and learn to utilize resources in a sustainable manner. It’s not really necessary for our economic well-being to grow alfalfa in the desert; no one will be deprived of their basic liberties if they can’t build a trophy home in a riparian zone; wood will still be abundant even if it can’t be stripped from the banks of fish-bearing streams; fresh salmon will still be available to consumers even if they have to be removed from traps instead than gill nets; wheat, potatoes and other goods will still make their way to markets if Lewiston is no longer a sea-port; and life as we know it won’t cease to exist if we have to pay electricity rates more in line with the rest of the nation.

Will restoring salmon to the Pacific Northwest mean making sacrifices? Sure, as many have pointed out, the causes of the salmon’s decline are many and varied so everyone will have to pitch in.
Is it worth it? I think so and I hope you do too. Don’t give up so easily.

-MT

[rob allen]

Somehting you might be interested to know...

The agg business in Washington is beginning to fail as it is and it has nothing to do with salmon.. It's offshore competition that is making things hard on the farmer. The Klamath basin farmers have been having trouble LONG before we had a drought. Last 2 years Snake river potatoe farmers plowed under large portions of their crops because the price they could get for their product wouldn't cover what it would cost to harvest them. Grape growers in the Columbia river gorge have uprooted their crops and gone elsewvere because they cannot compete and it has nothing to do with salmon , dams or the availabliity of water!
The aggriculture community has such a strong following in congress that they get pretty much everything they want and still they cannot compete!!!!! I say it's time to stop proping them up. They simply do not produce what comsumers want at a price consumers are willing to pay. Thier businees are going to fail dams or no dams.. I feel the same way about the airlines for that matter.
Impact on agg business especially wheat(takes almost no irrigation to grow) is a NON-ISSUE when it comes to salmon/dams issues.


As far as hatchies making people care more about the resourse. That is in my opinion false and here is why. Ever been to the north fork of the lewis during the fall coho run??? Tell me thoes people snagging fish infront of the hatchery care about the resource or wild fish...
Tell me the hordes at blue creeklining fish on 6 foot leaders and a tiny plastic bead taking home a limit every day care about wild fish.. Tell me that the locals down on the north Umpqua who clip the adipose fin of ever wild fish they catch (smolts and adults) care about the resource and wild fish, tell me tha bank full of guys who head up to lorens drift on the trask to snag fall chinook at the first rain in october care about wild fish... The fact is the more hatchery fish that are in a system the more people who don't care about the resource are drawn to that river.

British columbia is full of examples of streams that are in just as bad off as ours are where the local fishermen MOSTLY BAIT fishermen took pride in their wild steelhead resources and started fighting for fish habitat and wild fish and started giving up on their hatcheries and now release all their wild fish. does it bother them that they can no lobger kill these fish?? Ask a member of BC Driftfishers.. They will tell you no . They understand the importance of wild fish and fish habitat..

We have 2 choices ..

1..Protect wild fish and their habitat
2. the end to all salmon and steelhead fishing

[Stew]

I think we have become complacent and satisified with the status quo. We cannot be weaned off of hatchery fish and are not willing to make the sacrifice necessary to restore habitat! I can count myself in that majority I suppose.
What I feel we do need to to do what we can and are able to do to protect these wild runs of fish.
Things flatfish mentioned is a good start. Becoming involved is an important part.

[ 02-03-2003, 02:53 AM: Message edited by: Shane S ]

[Thumper]

One problem associated with even discussing the far-fetched ideas espoused by Moosie and Rob Allen is that it takes away some of the energy that could be directed toward achieving reasonable goals. Emphasis on "reasonable". We'd all be better off doing what we can, rather than pursuing such unrealistic objectives. Every single objective espoused by Moosie is just that --- unrealistic.

Anyone who espouses tearing down the Columbia River dams should share their dope with the rest of us.

[Straydog]

Look F-fish,

I respect your right to your opinion, fantasy, drug related (ref. Thumpers post) or otherwise.

I just happen to disagree with it and still maintain you are making unfair and unrealistic comparisons when comparing Measure 28 to the Federal Salmon issue.

I am a strong believer in setting goals and being persistant. I am also a strong believer in the reality that attitudes, economics and social priorities all change........ just as they are today.

Also, I don't know where you come up with the notion that a bunch of logging would stop under the guidelines put forth by MT. According to Gutshotape and industry spokes people, most all of those restrictions are in place already.

When I became involved in the effort to remove Savage Rapids Dam on the Rogue,
many, many people said just what you are saying about dams............ "it ain't gonna happen." While it has not happened yet, we are very, very close and I will not give up until the concrete crumbles.

If I were to have a defeatist attitude, I would never be as succesful as I am in my profession.

Sorry, I will leave the "can't do" attitude to you and your benevolent canine. I am too busy working to bring about positive change. :wink:

Thumper,

I guess I am more multi-task oriented than some. I can still support and even write a letter once in awhile for the removal of Snake River Dams and still have energy to be very involved in a few other fish friendly acitivities that are currently doing a lot of good on the ground in very real terms.

[ 02-03-2003, 08:33 AM: Message edited by: Straydog ]

[Thumper]

Those Oregonians who actually want to do something for their fisheries, rather than just dream on about a free-flowing Columbia, would do better to join Jerry Dove and other Ifishers at the WDFG meeting tomorrow. See the posts on that subject.

[Straydog]

Thumper,

And they can REALLY do some good if they make it to the ODFW meeting!! :wink: :grin:

[Flatfish]

It goes to show how attitudes vary so radically by location. We lived in Bend for a few years. OT was very popular there. I did not like them then. I do not like them today.They do not seem very popular on the coast.Or here in the North valley either. I have not spent enough time in the Rogue river valley to have an opinion.

You dam blasters, I give you credit, You are trying to do what you think is best for the fish. There is more than 1 way to skin a cat.

I am going to work at Terminal 6 in Portland now. A multi billion dollar a year economy that would not be there if it were not for the dams.

Mark and the stay at home dog.

[ 02-03-2003, 07:40 PM: Message edited by: Flatfish ]

[Thumper]

Oops! Meant ODFW or whatever you folks call it. Be there!

[ 02-03-2003, 07:20 AM: Message edited by: Thumper ]

[Straydog]

Mark,

I am not a big fan of OT for my own reasons.

However, that does not mean I will not partner with them on issues on which we agree.

It is my belief that we can disagree agreeably and still work together on those things we feel will better both our causes.

I am not sure where the PETA thing comes from but I am sure you have your reasons for feeling the way you do.

I also now better understand your hard line view of this issue............. my job motivates me in my beliefs as well.

[lost_sailor]

MT,
you'll want to keep an eye on HB 2459 and HB 2460 - I'm sure I'll post stuff here as it happens.

These are the ones that say hatchery fish from wild stock are wild fish, and all hatchery fish must be from wild stock. Check that logic, after one generation you can just use hatchery fish ...

The idea I think is "damn the habitat, we'll fix it with hatcheries"

Stay tuned.

[Jennie@ifish]

I take bold exception to that, Lost Sailor.

I think this is part of the problem, certainly not part of the solution.

It happens often, and I've seen it over and over. Oregon Trout, or other wild fish advocates, (Which, in actuality, you could call every single hatchery backer a wild fish advocate, I'm sure!!!) claim that we don't care about our environment, we just want to patch it up to make it look better.

SO FAR FROM THE TRUTH, and so very damaging to any future resolve of issues, or betterment of our resources.

Don't we understand that it takes all of us to save our salmon? We don't need a certain group "hero" to save the day, unless that means ALL OF US. Each and every one of us!

The one pipe dream I have, and yes, I believe in the tooth fairy, and perhaps I should share my drugs too.....

Is to find a balance, where we, as sportsfishermen and women can come together to work on a solution.

But every single time the issue is raised, the fur rises on the back, and it gets us further away from accomplishing a flippin thing. :depressed:

I would like to see people out on the river bank, in force, educating people who "take" fish without ethics, who leave trash on the bank, etc. AND we need to do this is a calm, non threatening way, in order to make an impact.

How to make someone want to care? The more people on the "save our salmon" side, the better. -- and that goes for both groups here.

Can't we ever become ONE for the salmon?
Jen

[ 02-03-2003, 08:41 AM: Message edited by: Jennie@ifish ]

[Straydog]

Well said Jen, well said. :smile:

[Jerry Dove]

Tillamook Anglers Mission Statement. (WORKING TOGETHER TO ENHANCE FISH AND FISHING). We need to get more folks to work together, we all have good ideas. We need to learn listen to all of them. See you in Salem Tues. Jerry

[garyk]

Thanks Moose for taking the time to write all of that.

Rather than debating issues like dams let's look a little closer to home...

Rob Allen mentioned 'political will' - when it comes to Northcoast salmon, that's in very short supply.

As a Tillamook County property owner, I try to keep informed of my county's political happenings. Here's two recent examples from Tillamook County, to whom according to various threads salmon are vital to the economy.

1. Tillamook County commissioners - siding with agressive 'property rights' lobbyists - have forestalled and rolled back attempts to enact county-wide riparian protections. The latest being within the last two weeks.

2. A lawsuit has been filed against the Ore. Dept. of Forestry alledging it approves timber sales that damage salmon habitat. The evidence against ODF is quite compelling.
Yet, in the county that places such high regard on salmon, Tillamook County commissioners filed as intervenors siding with ODF. Putting steep-slope logging ahead of salmon protection.

The message from Tillamook's government is pretty clear - "We're all for salmon, as long as they don't cause any inconvenience."

As long as various governments believe that someone else will pick up the bill for salmon - by funding artificial production - this political undermining of the salmon's future will continue.

[lost_sailor]

I'll just hope I wasn't misunderstood.

I'm not opposed to hatcheries. I am very much in favor of improving habitat for wild fish.

I was just pointing out the legislation that attempts to make the wild fish issue "go away" with hatcheries. A gross over-simplification of a brutally complex problem. HB 2459 and 2460 have been referred to the House "Water" committee (Rep. Kruse is a member, but not the chairman), no hearing scheduled yet.

[Thumper]

Garyk --- Can you give us any specifics about those two issues? I'd appreciate knowing.

[MooseTurd]

It appears to me that some opinions here are beginning to sound a bit to PETA-esque for by tastes.
<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helv">Ffish, I can assure you that I have no use for PETA what-so-ever. You might even be surprised to find that we have more in common than not. Today, for instance, I lunched on smoked steelhead that I caught on a N. Coast stream last week and enjoyed every bite - so yes, I do understand and appreciate the value proposition of hatcheries and consumptive fisheries. Rest assured that my views on hatcheries, dams, etc. do not come from radical left environmental groups. They were formed over 30 years of fishing, working and enjoying the outdoors - just as yours were.

-MT

[MadMerganser]

I wonder if we could restore a natural run of the size mentioned with a city the size of the Portland metro area right smack in the middle of the watershed? What about if we include all of the farmland in that because in no way does that land reflect a natural drainage. Just another angle to consider.-Lem

[garyk]

Skein & Thumper, thank you for your interest.

To all others I apologize if the following is response is considered off-thread.

1. Regarding the Tillamook riparian zone protections: this has been a work-in-progress for some time. There was also citizen interest in adopting an erosion-control ordinance modeled after Clackamas County's. My impression is it really got derailed after the last election when two commissioners, who are vehemently opposed to any perceived or actual inteference with so-called 'property rights' were elected. In fact, I recall that opposing the riparian protections was a cornerstone of one or both of their election campaigns.

Various articles have appeared in the Headlight Herald newspaper. Again, it's been long-running and going nowhere's fast. If they have a searchable archive you may be able to read through the history.

2. Regarding Tillamook's filing for intervenor status in the action against ODF, that was in the Oregonian in the last three weeks. It caught my attention as I was aware of the attempt to curb ODF's shirking of responsibility and ignoring damage to habitat. If I can find anything concise I'll put it under a separate thread.

Back on-track to the immediate topic:

Both these instances are illustrative of something Jim Lichatowich is trying to bring to light. Which is a lack of coordination, or even contradictory actions by government bodies who have a role in managing salmon.

[ 02-03-2003, 02:56 PM: Message edited by: garyk ]

[rob allen]

What if what if what if... It won't work because of.... or because of xxxxxxx

Here is the only certainty we have THE ONLY ONE!!!!

If we do nothing we will lose the fish and our opportunity to go fishing..

[Jerry Dove]

As a former two term Tillamook County Commissioner, let me assure you our present commissioners care a great deal about fish and fish habitat!!! I am to tired tonight to go into details. I'll just say before they approve anything they want to make sure it is worded right. Commissioner Paul Hannaman was the father of Oregons bottle bill and the STEP program, he will also be in Salem tomorrow to push the ODFE fee increase. I sure hope all of you will be there also. Jerry

[Flatfish]

"If we do nothing, we lose the fish and the opportunity to fish for them".

100% right. It seems we all care. It is just how to best help them and live with it.

Mark and the dog.

[rob allen]

In my view there are 3 things we should all be able to agree upon that would be good first steps.

1. ALL hatchery fish should be marked with an adipose clip
2. No out of basin fish should be planted anywhere
3. ODFW/WDFW should do everything they can to remove adult hatchery fish from the system before they spawn.

These are what I would call the bare minimum of what the agencies should be doing and they aren't even attempting to address these issues in a meaningful way.

[AnglersRental]

I'll bite on those three... no problems there. I would add:

4) Require / promote best avalible technology to limit wild fish mortality.

UG

[ 02-03-2003, 10:56 PM: Message edited by: Uglygreen ]

[MasterCaster]

WHAT!?!?! No it cant be!!!

I have to say I ACTUALLY AGREE with a whole post from rob allen!!!!! sorry couldnt resist :grin:

The three things you posted are what I think need to be done to be on the right track to help native runs of fish and yet be able to have a catch and keep fishery at the same time. graemlins/applause.gif graemlins/applause.gif

but Im still in shock that I agree with one of your posts!! :shocked: :grin:

Jon :smile: :grin: :smile:

[ 02-03-2003, 11:36 PM: Message edited by: MasterCaster ]

[Amerman]

Great post guys. We need these kind of debates to be able to work together. I can't believe I am going to go along and agree with Rob A, Ugly and MC on these 3 ( 4 things).

Quote from retired ODFW Employee ( that was there many year and many years ago). " The worst invention in history for Wild fish was the Hatchery Truck". Meaning: this enabled them to truck fish out of basin.

MT I believe in a lot of with what you have said in theory, but sometimes we can not do what is best we can only do what is best for right now. We as Americans have become spoiled we want our power, our paper, wood (and houses), water to drink and grown are crops and the ability to fish our river (and keep a fish to take home) not just look at them and wait for them to return to old form.

[Navigator]

I need to read Salmon without Rivers. Been on my "to do" list (right below catch a Spring Chinook).

However, the way I see it MT is that hatchery management is evolving and we are headed in the right direction. Your plan puts too much weight on the environment. For fisheries to be sustainable, they need to provide for environmental, social and economic. That must be the context of the policy discussion. I think hatchery management is moving forward keeping that context in mind.

There is more common ground on this than people recognize. In my mind, what Tillamook Anglers and the North Coast hatcheries are working toward is sound hatchery management that reduces risks to wild fish stocks - at the same time provides good economics and social value to those dependent and who enjoy sportfishing.

(I'm practicing for tomorrow, .... err graemlins/eek13.gif , this afternoon ....

[skein]

Garyk, I'm like Thumper. I'd like more specifics about your post. Those resonate like proverbial "sound bites." The whole story might be a different critter entirely.

Just wonderin'....

Skein

[MooseTurd]

Can't we ever become ONE for the salmon?
<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helv">Hang in there Jen. This is exactly the kind of dialog that is required for that to eventually happen. You're doing an excellent job moderating what is a very contentious issue and goes right to the heart of what we believe and hold dear as anglers and citizens. We need more of this, not less.

-MT

[Tilla]

It took "civilization" 150 years to get to this point. So why not a 150 year plan to change it. For those who have forgotten the definition of Ecology is the relationship between man and earth together. We CAN do something to improve our situation. We CAN have industry become better stewards to the land. We CAN make the world a better place. And we CAN make a buck at the same time.
It might not happen tomorrow, it might take some generations. But we can start today.
I am amazed at those that have given up these dreams and live with the "cant's' and excuses and the explain it as reality. My high school PE coach would kick my "star pound sign pound sign'. :rolleyes:
I bet there are people that think those dams are going to last for ever and ever. Funny thing, they are different from the people who think old growth timber will last for ever and ever. :rolleyes:

[MooseTurd]

I have to agree with Tilla, the actions that I listed which are necessary to recover our wild stocks will certainly not happen if we all just roll over and play dead. Can all of these things be accomplished with a flip of a switch? Of course not; I’m a realist – I’ll be surprised (pleasantly of course) if any of the dams I mentioned come down in my lifetime. But there was a time when few could imagine a country where African Americans were free and women could vote. People change, attitudes change, priorities change and political systems change. It takes a vision followed with courage and determination to affect change. Do you have what it takes?

-MT

[jkfrabel]

moved to diferant post sorry........

[ 02-04-2003, 12:05 PM: Message edited by: jkfrabel ]

[garyk]

Mostly, what it comes down to is - what are we investing in? The short-term or the long-term?

Currently, the bulk of our money is going to the short-term expense of hatcheries. And that's what were going to get - a never ending, annually increasing, expense.

Meanwhile, by emphasizing hatchery production, it provides the excuse for not preserving-sustaining-restoring essential salmon habitat.

That's why I provided the example of the current Tillamook County Commissioners - while they may give lip-service to salmon, publicaly funded hatcheries provide them the cover so they can consistantly side with actions that nibble away at watershed health. The developers and Ore.Dept of Forestry love it -- maximum exploitation while the public picks up the bill. And this, in the vital heart of north coast salmon country.

In areas that depend on natural production the community is much more protective of the resource. And it is precisely that, which hatcheries and their never-ending controversies distract us from.

[Navigator]

Rob Allen -- I agree with your 3 points. Also, good point about hatchery fish bringing out the worst in us (combat fishing). I advance the arguement that hatcheries help keep people connected to the watershed - did so at the hearing. Your point is well taken. All I can say in rebuttle is that my glasses are rose colored and I hope the future (and forums like Ifish) lower the number of bad apples and increase the number of good ones.

[bigfishon]

Logging could be copleatly eliminated if our government would allow a simple replacement (the marijana plant) that produce 4 times the pulp of an acre of trees, makes paper with hardly any chemicles, will produce fuels that replace ALL fossil fuels & oils (and the fuels it produces since they are made from living plants are non harmful to the enviroment when used), can make press board, clothing (some the strongest available), plastics (that are biodegradable), want to know the truth about marijana and it's more than 50,000 uses read "The Emperor Wears No Clothes, all about the government conspiracy against pot & how pot can save the world, By Jack Herer" if you think he is wronge he offers $100,000.00 to anyone who can prove him wronge, and in the 17 years his book has been in print no one has taken on that challenge. Legalizing pot is the one thing that could end logging, drilling for oil, majore oils spills in our costal waters, burning of fossil fuels, and stop the need for cotton (cotton is grown on only 1% of US lands, but uses more than 70% of all chemicals & pesticides used in the US) read the book, it will blow your mind, change the way you think about your world and the enviroment, and change the way you think about your government. Pick up that book and read the first 10 pages and you will want to buy it and take it home to finnish reading it.

:cheers:

[Clamman]

FB, DFB, STG, Jennie etal,

I think an IFISH book club would be a great idea. There is so much literature out there regarding these and other parallel issues that I would love to be involved. Maybe Jennie could advise how to do this, a monthly post of books people have read and enjoyed?, books to read and then discuss? I think it would be a nice alternative to some of the "normal" ramblings on the BB.

Clam

[hustlerrjim]

This is what I refer to as barstool fish biology.
One of the best collections iv'e seen

[FishaholicAZ]

Here goes... Ok. Everyone on this thread likes to fish for salmon. That is a given. Now, we talk about habitat and dams and gillnets and all that stuff. For a moment, lets look at the Lewis as a prime example. It is a very altered waterway. One that has three huge dams on it and more than three fourths of its water of no use to salmon because of the dams. Now, below Merwin dam, the river is in pretty decent shape. The shore lines are in good health and there is decent cover for juvenile fish. There is also one main trib that fish use... Cedar creek. Now, this river also empties into a fairly good sized community and it also has a good number of farms on its shores. Now, this river has one of the biggest... Let me rephrase that, the single biggest return of WILD Fall chinook out of any other lower columbia tribs. Now I ask, how is that possible since there is a hatchery and a dam and an ect...

Now, my point is this. Fish and man can coexsist and flourish as is seen with the Lewis. The problem starts with people not knowing any better and simply not caring. What needs to happen, just like MT said is that the riparian areas need to be protected. Siltation and flooding is one of the biggest problems with salmon habitat destruction because it only takes one big storm to ruin a good year of fishing as is the case on the tillamook bay rivers. Because of the logging and what not in the past up into the riparian zones, those streams blow out like no others... There could be twice the amount of fish in there were in not for the destruction of the forests.

Next, dams aren't necassarily bad. Granted there are some dams that need to go like the snake and elwa and white salmon and so forth... but that is a case by case issue.

Gillnetting has to go out of the river and into the big blue... And even there it should be done in a way to minimize by catch. In the rivers them selves, there should be no netting of any kind. There are better methods of extracting fish in a non destructive way. There has to be a compromise between the commercials, the charters, the sporties and the nations involved in catching these salmon. I think that we all agree on the fact that a lot of different nations share in these fish as bounty and we all need to work together to set realistic harvest goals for all user groups and at the same time ensuring enough returning fish for not just the minimul amount of needed adults but for extra as well to make it to spawn.

We need a common goal. Nature some how finds ways to replenish herself. I mean, look at the Columbia river below Bonneville. There are Chum salmon that no one even knew existed spawing around the I-205 bridge. There are Chinook and Coho spawing in lots of small creeks that no one knew even had a salmon. These fish are resiliant and if we give them a chance to build on their own they will but not fast enough for all of us to enjoy. We need to help them now and Hatcheries are not a very good source for that. We know that they are great for producing lots of fish for the table but thats it...
One thing I think hatcheries could be good for was brood stock programs and thats it...

Something I once heard from a fellow while fishing on the Miami a few years ago was that they used to take fish eggs from wild fish and spawn them in the hatcheries. After doing that they would place the eggs in hatch boxes along the stream bank in places where animals and floods couldn't wash the eggs away. When the eggs would hatch they were on their own to retain the wild traights they were bread from. This seems like a great way to restart any wild fish program along with habitat restoration... Its really not that simple because people like their million dollar views from their back yards and they don't like to be told they can't harvest a douglas fir because its within five feet of a river or that they can't let their cows trample through streams to drink and relieve themselves in or that they cant pump water out of that river to water their crops covered in pesticides and soil runoff... Its a PEOPLE ISSUE first and then when that gets settled we can concentrate on what matters most..... The fish.

Just a little something. I could have gone way deeper in this issue as I have read and done some research on all of these topics for many years but there is still so much to learn. I am sure my views are scewed in some cases but its not hard to see what works and what doesn't... As someone said earlier in the post, its hard to let go of soemthing we are so accustomed to and then go and completely change it. (hatchery policy)

I really enjoy reading everything everyone has said and I learned much from many... It all comes down to getting involved. I as a fisherman always do what I can to help. I don't litter and I always pack out more than I carry in. Watch where you step and be even more watchful where others step. Speak up and don't be affraid to tell someone they are walking on spawining beds. They will listen if you tell them... And most importanly, treat the resource with respect.

Tight lines and let the wild ones go...

[Born to be Wild]

Great thread........... the key to bringing about change is education, education, education. <font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helv">Great point Straydog!

The "barbershop biology" or "cafe science" down here on the Coast is horrific! These fisherman need to be educated!

A lot of the problem is driven by the Charter Fleet. They go out in the Ocean and catch some Coho and believe they are the "experts" when in fact, most of them haven't fished the freshwater where a Coho spends half of his life or knows little or no science. Then when science is offered to them, they openly reject it, and bad mouth the Biologist/Fishery Managers!

Of course then they preach this Gospel to there kids and the community, and being the experts, there religon is taken for the truth.

I have felt for years the fisherman and general public needs to be educated and have expressed this concern with a Biologist I have befriended.

I believe part of the problem is that some Biologist don't speak the same language as the fisherman. Most fisherman don't comprehend the scientific language of scientist!

Maybe ODFW needs a "Liasion" or "Diplomat" to convey the message to the general public?

I've often thought of the old "Town Hall" forum I believe was broadcast on KATU and maybe still is, would be a good start on educating/debating these issue's, as you do on this site.

Something needs to be done so that these fisherman will start working with Fisheries mgmt. instead of non productively against them!

Hopefully some of these folks will swallow some of there pride as more info becomes available on the dramatic rebound of our OCN's this year (2002/2003). Probably most of you saw the article in the Register-Gaurd a couple weeks ago where the preliminary estimates for OCN's "natural" or "wild" Coho will probably be in the 200,000-300,000 range this year! Thats incredible!

Should also be a Coho article in the Oregonian tommorow (Thursday) by Mr. Brinckman and might be interesting to see what he has to report.

Just goes to show you what can take place with habitat restoration, decreased hatchery smolt, wise management, and great Ocean conditions!

Fact of the matter is, there will in all probabilty, be a fishery on some of these "wild stocks" in selected rivers/bays (where they now have healthy #'s) within the next year or two, possibly even this Fall!

I personally believe barring no '96 type floods or no lenghly severe El 'Nino's, we will be fishing both Hatchery and Wild Coho out in the Ocean in just a few years. The problem with fishing the Ocean now is you have a few of the weaker wild stocks mixed in with them out in the salt (i.e. Alsea stocks and a few others) that need a little more rebuilding time. But, some of these threatened stocks are not anymore and in fact in large enough #'s to fish on. For example, the Yaquina River might have seen 20,000 wild Coho this year and there are other stocks to the South that are even doing better. I believe I heard the Nehalem River to the North also saw good #'s!

I don't like to slam the Charter's, and not all of them cop the attitude of most, but there has been another problem with there lack of education or attitudes on Coho. They have been handeling these Wild (non finclipped) Coho out in the salt with dissrespect. Maybe some of you read Bill Monroe's column in the Oregonian last year regarding the charter's and there handeling of wild fish based on there own customers complaining.

I can tell you from my own experience the last several years what I've observed.
The normal procedure is for them to net the wild fish, slam him down on their sandpaper deck, look for the fin or absence of one and then handle the fish while removing the hook, and then releasing them back into the water. Bill Monroe went one step further and stated that sometimes the wild fish was left on the deck while they went and attended another Hatchery fish that was being fought or landed! I heard some Charters last year on the CB refering to them as "Crab Bait"!
All in the name of a "buck".
Can anyone say, "shoot yourself in the foot"?

Anyway, Incredible turn-a-round!
Have faith!
-Dano-