Hatchery and Wild…. the movie - Page 2 - www.ifish.net
The Oregonian's Bill Monroe!

Go Back   www.ifish.net > Ifish Fishing and Hunting > Ifish Community

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 02-01-2014, 09:26 AM   #61
brewder1
Steelhead
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: Aumsville
Posts: 211
Default Re: Hatchery and Wild…. the movie

The anglers alliance is trying to find a solution for both sides while working together with other organizations to have thriving population of these now called native fish while also maintaining a hatchery broodstock to supplement the loss of habitat, dams, low water quality and fish to name a few.

By reevaluating the hatcheries and some of the procedures done in different systems. I believe we could all have a common goal and support these fish in our rivers both wild and hatchery supplementation.

In order that everyone could be satisfied and not just a onesided group of the minority who is not willing to
compromise.

Hopefully once the majority of the people that live in this area have expressed their opinions, concerns and thoughts on the subject, then we can actually decifer how the issues shall be handled.

My opinion: This is our heritage living in the PNW and we should do whatever it takes to sustain or preserve the fish for everyone to continue to enjoy.

It's not just about the fish in our rivers it's also about "we the people" and what will work for everyone.

brewder1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-01-2014, 09:32 AM   #62
West_side Coug
Cutthroat
 
West_side Coug's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Posts: 20
Default Re: Hatchery and Wild…. the movie

Quote:
Originally Posted by Royal2 View Post
My question to anyone who knows or attended the meeting is what is next? Has anyone in the know, talked about what the action plan is now? I have not heard.

NFS and the Wild Steelhead Coalition filed lawsuits and won. We made a movie which is a good start but... I'm ready to push back. The new organizations popping up and the movie are a good way to bring us all together.

Now, how do we get off the defense and go on the offense that brings back the rivers we lost and beyond?

Was any of this discussed?

Thanks
I went to the meeting hoping to hear the answers to these questions and feel the same way. It was said that the movie was only a beginning, but no further detail on what happens next was really brought up beyond sharing the movie with those who might not know what's going on. I want to get involved and don't mind writing a check, but would like to see a plan before backing it.
West_side Coug is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-01-2014, 09:43 AM   #63
rob allen
King Salmon
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Vancouver, WA
Posts: 5,574
Default Re: Hatchery and Wild…. the movie

Quote:
Originally Posted by brewder1 View Post
The anglers alliance is trying to find a solution for both sides while working together with other organizations to have thriving population of these now called native fish while also maintaining a hatchery broodstock to supplement the loss of habitat, dams, low water quality and fish to name a few.

By reevaluating the hatcheries and some of the procedures done in different systems. I believe we could all have a common goal and support these fish in our rivers both wild and hatchery supplementation. That's just it reevaluation rarely occurs and nothing is done until lawsuites are threatened.. will you still work for supplementation on river x if the science shows that supplementation is a problem, the historical record says yes.

In order that everyone could be satisfied and not just a onesided group of the minority who is not willing to
compromise.


this is entirely inaccurate as i have sated before. if this issue is one sided it is one sided in favor of hatcheries and their business as usual approach

Hopefully once the majority of the people that live in this area have expressed their opinions, concerns and thoughts on the subject, then we can actually decifer how the issues shall be handled. tha majority has expressed it's opinion when congress and the president enacted the endangered species act

My opinion: This is our heritage living in the PNW and we should do whatever it takes to sustain or preserve the fish for everyone to continue to enjoy.
my opinion is that we need to preserve and protect our rivers and fish even if no one gets to enjoy them

It's not just about the fish in our rivers it's also about "we the people" and what will work for everyone.
it's not just about we the anglers it's about the fish and the millions of American people who don't even know what a steelhead is but spend their tax dollars to restore the rivers while other want to spend more of their tax dollars to harm them by carrying on business as usual.
rob allen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-01-2014, 09:45 AM   #64
Lucky Ginger
Steelhead
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 351
Default Re: Hatchery and Wild…. the movie

Great movie! Education is always good.
Lucky Ginger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-01-2014, 09:47 AM   #65
rob allen
King Salmon
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Vancouver, WA
Posts: 5,574
Default Re: Hatchery and Wild…. the movie

Quote:
Originally Posted by stlhdr1 View Post
I don't know that any study is specifically applicable to any basin... But one common occorance is if you take a W x W for each brood year and not a W x 2nd year H results seem to produce. It's increased returns.

Using out of basin stock for a hatchery fish has created the problems from everything I've gathered over the years. Do you agree?

The Snyder creek program used in basin stocks for their program, using a W x W to produce their "hatchery" fish. The other basins up there "Bogachiel in particular used the Chamber's creek stock I beleive and I've watched that river's wild #'s drop when I used to fish it. Coincidence?

Keith

Keith. I am no fan of chambers creek fish.. and as i said i am all for experimentation what I am opposed to is blindly wanting untested wild brood programs . The guys i know who fish the Nestucca have seen a drop in wild populations there since the broodstock program began same as the Sandy.
rob allen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-01-2014, 10:21 AM   #66
Jack Smith
Chromer
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Tillamook Oregon
Posts: 703
Default Re: Hatchery and Wild…. the movie

Quote:
Originally Posted by rob allen View Post
here is the thing
if the hatchery fish you are planting have 85% the reproductive ability then every year you are losing your wild fish population by 15%.. Wild fish by themselves will make more fish than the hatchery unless you domesticate those fish, or plant more of them and do more damage to the wild run. and 30 years down the road the program will crash as we consistently see with long term hatchery programs.

If what you are saying were true if you started with 100 wild fish you would end up with a run that was extinct in 24 years and functionally extinct much sooner than that.

Over a century of hatchery practices, most with much less fit old style stocks, and basic math show you are wrong.
__________________
Jack Smith


"When you get in the end zone you otta act like you been there before."
Jack Smith is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-01-2014, 02:29 PM   #67
Trsaxo
Fry
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 7
Default Re: Hatchery and Wild…. the movie

Quote:
Originally Posted by West_side Coug View Post
I went to the meeting hoping to hear the answers to these questions and feel the same way. It was said that the movie was only a beginning, but no further detail on what happens next was really brought up beyond sharing the movie with those who might not know what's going on. I want to get involved and don't mind writing a check, but would like to see a plan before backing it.
It all starts with educating the sport fishing and non sportfishing community of the issues. We must educate the NFS donors of the damaging activities they are supporting. If they continue to support, you boycott and cause financial harm. We will obtain a lobbyist to work in Salem on our behalf. We will perform economic impact studies to take to our politicians and ask if they are for or against us and hold them accountable. Without our votes they may not gain reelection and they will be reminded of this and the fact that they work for us. Judge Haggerty was fooled by the NFS and he will be more educated the next time he takes the bench. He needs to see the truth in our documentary.

TRSAXO
Trsaxo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-01-2014, 03:54 PM   #68
MsOutdrs
King Salmon
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Oregon City, Oregon
Posts: 6,980
Default Re: Hatchery and Wild…. the movie

Quote:
Originally Posted by Trsaxo View Post
It all starts with educating the sport fishing and non sportfishing community of the issues. We must educate the NFS donors of the damaging activities they are supporting. If they continue to support, you boycott and cause financial harm. We will obtain a lobbyist to work in Salem on our behalf. We will perform economic impact studies to take to our politicians and ask if they are for or against us and hold them accountable. Without our votes they may not gain reelection and they will be reminded of this and the fact that they work for us. Judge Haggerty was fooled by the NFS and he will be more educated the next time he takes the bench. He needs to see the truth in our documentary.

TRSAXO
It appears to be a large group mounting a campaign against the removal of hatcheries. That's what you need to sway the legislators AND, with the commercial gillnetters on board, remember they have Betsy Johnson in Salem who used to have a lot of influence and power down there. Don't know if things have changed. She got some bad press last fall. I've always said I'd rather have her on my side than on the "other" side.
MsOutdrs is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-01-2014, 04:14 PM   #69
Jerry Dove
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: tillamook or
Posts: 4,539
Default Re: Hatchery and Wild…. the movie

Quote:
Originally Posted by MsOutdrs View Post
It appears to be a large group mounting a campaign against the removal of hatcheries. That's what you need to sway the legislators AND, with the commercial gillnetters on board, remember they have Betsy Johnson in Salem who used to have a lot of influence and power down there. Don't know if things have changed. She got some bad press last fall. I've always said I'd rather have her on my side than on the "other" side.
You are right about having Betsy on our side. She supports Tillamook Anglers and the Whiskey Creek Volunteer Salmon Hatchery. Let's keep her working for hatcheries.
Jerry Dove is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-01-2014, 05:11 PM   #70
Gun Rod Bow
 
Gun Rod Bow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Sherwood, OR
Posts: 10,370
Default Re: Hatchery and Wild…. the movie

We had an excellent joint house/senate hearing with coastal legislators last spring and they pushed back hard on Odfw and the Coastal Multispecies Plan. Following that hearing it was much improved

We worked along with other groups last session to change the board of directors of the Oregon Hatchery Research Center. There is hope there.

Lawsuits are imminent threats and will need to be responded to.

There is much support for hatcheries in the Oregon legislature.

Our fisheries director is meeting with nmfs next week in DC. NMFS needs to do a better job of processing HGMPs and supporting hatchery practices. We are meeting with Odfw next week along with many other stakeholders ( fish groups) to discuss the CMP and McKenzie suit.

Much work and various fronts to work on moving forward.
__________________
Now Jeff wants to be like me

Last edited by Gun Rod Bow; 02-01-2014 at 05:43 PM.
Gun Rod Bow is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-01-2014, 09:05 PM   #71
Chance
Tuna!
 
Chance's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Washington
Posts: 1,499
Default Re: Hatchery and Wild…. the movie

Quote:
Originally Posted by rob allen View Post
yeah they only gave the Hood river study a slight nod.

here is the thing
if the hatchery fish you are planting have 85% the reproductive ability then every year you are losing your wild fish population by 15%.. Wild fish by themselves will make more fish than the hatchery unless you domesticate those fish, or plant more of them and do more damage to the wild run. and 30 years down the road the program will crash as we consistently see with long term hatchery programs.

I am all for hatchery fish used with care.. we don't use care however because we are greedy and want fish to eat.
Rob, you accuse others of cherry-picking data, yet you have clearly demonstrated the epitome of cherry-picked data with the 85% figure you have used.

If you are using this figure from Blouin, you have left out several key facts:

1.) 85% relative fitness is a number estimated for out-of-basin Skamania H-old stock spawning with native, natural origin stocks. These fish have not been used since 1998 and were being phased out at the time of this study.

2.) H-new fish (derived from W broodstock) demonstrated equal fitness to natural origin fish. What a surprise. Native hatchery origin fish out-perform inbred out-of-basin stocks?

3.) The relative fitness matrix (which you inadvertently used to describe a perpetual decrease in fitness over time), while commonly used for theory, has never been observed. Even Blouin and Araki would never use a matrix to represent spawner ability because it requires extreme assumption which clashes with practical fisheries science:
a. It has no ability to account for gene flow among multiple age classes.
b. It does not account for pairings other than assumed pairings, i.e., how can it account for a first generation fish spawning with a 3rd-generation once removed natural origin fish.
c. It does not account for multiple stocks or resident spawners.
d. It would mean that systems with heavy hatchery plants greatly outnumbering natural stocks for more than 10 generations would in most cases have no self-sustaining natural production.

If you had actually read the study instead of spouting theory from others, you'd realise what you wrote is factually misleading and patently false.

Here's some homework for you:

How can a fish with relative fitness less than 1.00 sustain a population?

If a spawner has an estimated relative fitness rate of under 1.00, does it have returning progeny?

Last edited by Chance; 02-01-2014 at 09:07 PM.
Chance is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-01-2014, 09:17 PM   #72
uplandsandpiper
Tuna!
 
uplandsandpiper's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Ridgefield, WA
Posts: 1,334
Default Re: Hatchery and Wild…. the movie

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chance View Post
Rob, you accuse others of cherry-picking data, yet you have clearly demonstrated the epitome of cherry-picked data with the 85% figure you have used.

If you are using this figure from Blouin, you have left out several key facts:

1.) 85% relative fitness is a number estimated for out-of-basin Skamania H-old stock spawning with native, natural origin stocks. These fish have not been used since 1998 and were being phased out at the time of this study.

2.) H-new fish (derived from W broodstock) demonstrated equal fitness to natural origin fish. What a surprise. Native hatchery origin fish out-perform inbred out-of-basin stocks?

3.) The relative fitness matrix (which you inadvertently used to describe a perpetual decrease in fitness over time), while commonly used for theory, has never been observed. Even Blouin and Araki would never use a matrix to represent spawner ability because it requires extreme assumption which clashes with practical fisheries science:
a. It has no ability to account for gene flow among multiple age classes.
b. It does not account for pairings other than assumed pairings, i.e., how can it account for a first generation fish spawning with a 3rd-generation once removed natural origin fish.
c. It does not account for multiple stocks or resident spawners.
d. It would mean that systems with heavy hatchery plants greatly outnumbering natural stocks for more than 10 generations would in most cases have no self-sustaining natural production.

If you had actually read the study instead of spouting theory from others, you'd realise what you wrote is factually misleading and patently false.

Here's some homework for you:

How can a fish with relative fitness less than 1.00 sustain a population?

If a spawner has an estimated relative fitness rate of under 1.00, does it have returning progeny?
Finally someone who understands population biology
__________________
There is nothing more damaging to a man's adventurous spirit than a secure future.
uplandsandpiper is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-01-2014, 09:25 PM   #73
Fishtail
Tuna!
 
Fishtail's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Yamhill, Oregon
Posts: 1,318
Default Re: Hatchery and Wild…. the movie

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gun Rod Bow View Post
We had an excellent joint house/senate hearing with coastal legislators last spring and they pushed back hard on Odfw and the Coastal Multispecies Plan. Following that hearing it was much improved

We worked along with other groups last session to change the board of directors of the Oregon Hatchery Research Center. There is hope there.

Lawsuits are imminent threats and will need to be responded to.

There is much support for hatcheries in the Oregon legislature.

Our fisheries director is meeting with nmfs next week in DC. NMFS needs to do a better job of processing HGMPs and supporting hatchery practices. We are meeting with Odfw next week along with many other stakeholders ( fish groups) to discuss the CMP and McKenzie suit.


I'm ready to take on the fight against NFS and other groups with that mentality!
Much work and various fronts to work on moving forward.
__________________
"A leader is a man who can adapt principles to circumstances."
- General George S. Patton, Jr
Fishtail is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-01-2014, 10:05 PM   #74
rob allen
King Salmon
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Vancouver, WA
Posts: 5,574
Default Re: Hatchery and Wild…. the movie

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jack Smith View Post
If what you are saying were true if you started with 100 wild fish you would end up with a run that was extinct in 24 years and functionally extinct much sooner than that.

Over a century of hatchery practices, most with much less fit old style stocks, and basic math show you are wrong.
you lost me there...

best case scenario hatchery steelhead are 85% less able to spawn in the wild than wild fish. On average you lose 15% per year. With wild fish there is no 15% loss. Old style hatchery steelhead rarely spawn successfully in the wild.

the idea that wild broodstocks can rebuild a steelhead run is completely speculation and has never been realized.

What I am saying is true and if you start off with 100 steelhead you'd likely have 100 steelhead in the future, unless you allowed hatchery fish to spawn with them in which case you'll lose wild fish every year.. Just as we have seen on the Sandy.
keep the hatchery fish from spawning in the wild and you make the lack of hatchery fitness a non- issue
rob allen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-01-2014, 10:32 PM   #75
rob allen
King Salmon
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Vancouver, WA
Posts: 5,574
Default Re: Hatchery and Wild…. the movie

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chance View Post
Rob, you accuse others of cherry-picking data, yet you have clearly demonstrated the epitome of cherry-picked data with the 85% figure you have used.

If you are using this figure from Blouin, you have left out several key facts:

1.) 85% relative fitness is a number estimated for out-of-basin Skamania H-old stock spawning with native, natural origin stocks. These fish have not been used since 1998 and were being phased out at the time of this study.

2.) H-new fish (derived from W broodstock) demonstrated equal fitness to natural origin fish. What a surprise. Native hatchery origin fish out-perform inbred out-of-basin stocks?

3.) The relative fitness matrix (which you inadvertently used to describe a perpetual decrease in fitness over time), while commonly used for theory, has never been observed. Even Blouin and Araki would never use a matrix to represent spawner ability because it requires extreme assumption which clashes with practical fisheries science:
a. It has no ability to account for gene flow among multiple age classes.
b. It does not account for pairings other than assumed pairings, i.e., how can it account for a first generation fish spawning with a 3rd-generation once removed natural origin fish.
c. It does not account for multiple stocks or resident spawners.
d. It would mean that systems with heavy hatchery plants greatly outnumbering natural stocks for more than 10 generations would in most cases have no self-sustaining natural production.

If you had actually read the study instead of spouting theory from others, you'd realise what you wrote is factually misleading and patently false.

Here's some homework for you:

How can a fish with relative fitness less than 1.00 sustain a population?

If a spawner has an estimated relative fitness rate of under 1.00, does it have returning progeny?
"“We’ve known for some time that hatchery-born fish are less successful at survival and reproduction in the wild,” said Michael Blouin, a professor of zoology at Oregon State University. “However, until now, it wasn’t clear why. What this study shows is that intense evolutionary pressures in the hatchery rapidly select for fish that excel there, at the expense of their reproductive success in the wild.”"

85% was the number quoted by the biologist in the video. I assumed you guys would accept "facts" from that video as gospel.

Blouin says in his studies that tha ability to use wild broodstock programs to enhance steelhead runs in "untested"

ODFW and WDFW have a long history of running away with untested ideas and it always turns out bad for wild fish and leads to perfectly legitimate lawsuits.

If you really want to quibble about numbers I am not interested. I am interested in keeping you and others from misinforming the public at large.

There is not a shred of evidence anywhere that suggests any form of hatchery is anything but bad for wild steelhead. Yet increased hatchery production is the only thing being put forward by sportsmens organizations.

I have no problem with them wanting more hatchery steelhead I do have a problem with them suggesting that it's scientifically defensible. It's not!



"d. It would mean that systems with heavy hatchery plants greatly outnumbering natural stocks for more than 10 generations would in most cases have no self-sustaining natural production."
Doh you finally get one right chance!!!!! now you understand what happened to so many of our wild steelhead populations!!!!!!! 10 generations is 30 years give or take.. Hmmm Washougal steelhead really started crashing at around 20.

Last edited by rob allen; 02-01-2014 at 10:36 PM.
rob allen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-02-2014, 07:48 AM   #76
GUPPYSLAYER
Steelhead
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Vancouver, WA
Posts: 313
Default Re: Hatchery and Wild…. the movie

That video is well made. Hopefully there will be more efforts like this to align vested interests and goals. A few here touched on designing a message to educate those people (non fishing crowd) who don't know some of the history and/or have no idea of the current status. Now that would be something.

The worst possible plan executed well will always be better than the seemingly best plan not executed well or in a divisive way.
GUPPYSLAYER is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-02-2014, 07:55 AM   #77
5-Cents
King Salmon
 
5-Cents's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Beaverton
Posts: 11,134
Default Re: Hatchery and Wild…. the movie

Quote:
Originally Posted by rob allen View Post
Very well done, very one sided.


so the rationale portrayed in the video is this..

it didn't work on the Hood river but it worked one time on the Clearwater, we need to treat all rivers as individuals therefore lets put wild broodstocks or some other type of hatchery fish everywhere..

that's what was said.


I am all for experimentation.. I am completely opposed to blindly putting hatchery fish everywhere , that is what we have done in the past that is what we are doing now.. nothing has changed and numbers of wild fish continue to decline.

Explain to me how that's any different than (edit) using one study from the Hood River to shut down the Sandy? Get ready to taste your own medicine because you (edited) FINALLY allied tribes, sporties and commercials!
__________________
It is better to say, "This one thing I do" than to say, "These forty things I dabble in."
--- Washington Gladden

The gods do not deduct from man's allotted span the hours spent in fishing. ~Babylonian Proverb

http://twitter.com/5CentZ
5-Cents is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-02-2014, 07:57 AM   #78
cosmo
Ifish Nate
 
cosmo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 2,602
Default Re: Hatchery and Wild…. the movie

Quote:
Originally Posted by rob allen View Post
you lost me there...

best case scenario hatchery steelhead are 85% less able to spawn in the wild than wild fish. On average you lose 15% per year. With wild fish there is no 15% loss. Old style hatchery steelhead rarely spawn successfully in the wild.

the idea that wild broodstocks can rebuild a steelhead run is completely speculation and has never been realized.

What I am saying is true and if you start off with 100 steelhead you'd likely have 100 steelhead in the future, unless you allowed hatchery fish to spawn with them in which case you'll lose wild fish every year.. Just as we have seen on the Sandy.
keep the hatchery fish from spawning in the wild and you make the lack of hatchery fitness a non- issue
Your use of this information is patently false and demonstrates a complete lack of understanding of what relative reproductive success means.

You cannot jump relative reproductive success to the adult population. Not a single scientist will make that leap with you.

You poison discussions with bad information, and for a person who supposedly cares so much, that's really sad.
cosmo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-02-2014, 08:05 AM   #79
5-Cents
King Salmon
 
5-Cents's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Beaverton
Posts: 11,134
Default Re: Hatchery and Wild…. the movie

Quote:
Originally Posted by Trsaxo View Post
It all starts with educating the sport fishing and non sportfishing community of the issues. We must educate the NFS donors of the damaging activities they are supporting. If they continue to support, you boycott and cause financial harm. We will obtain a lobbyist to work in Salem on our behalf. We will perform economic impact studies to take to our politicians and ask if they are for or against us and hold them accountable. Without our votes they may not gain reelection and they will be reminded of this and the fact that they work for us. Judge Haggerty was fooled by the NFS and he will be more educated the next time he takes the bench. He needs to see the truth in our documentary.

TRSAXO
__________________
It is better to say, "This one thing I do" than to say, "These forty things I dabble in."
--- Washington Gladden

The gods do not deduct from man's allotted span the hours spent in fishing. ~Babylonian Proverb

http://twitter.com/5CentZ
5-Cents is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-02-2014, 08:07 AM   #80
BTA
Tuna!
 
BTA's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Newberg
Posts: 1,898
Default Re: Hatchery and Wild…. the movie

Quote:
Originally Posted by rob allen View Post
Old style hatchery steelhead rarely spawn successfully in the wild.
Then why do people claim that they are such a big threat to wild fish?
BTA is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 02-02-2014, 08:09 AM   #81
rob allen
King Salmon
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Vancouver, WA
Posts: 5,574
Default Re: Hatchery and Wild…. the movie

Quote:
Originally Posted by BTA View Post
Then why do people claim that they are such a big threat to wild fish?
because they spawn unsuccessfully in the wild often with wild mates.
rob allen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-02-2014, 08:15 AM   #82
rob allen
King Salmon
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Vancouver, WA
Posts: 5,574
Default Re: Hatchery and Wild…. the movie

Quote:
Originally Posted by cosmo View Post
Your use of this information is patently false and demonstrates a complete lack of understanding of what relative reproductive success means.

You cannot jump relative reproductive success to the adult population. Not a single scientist will make that leap with you.

You poison discussions with bad information, and for a person who supposedly cares so much, that's really sad.
and you poison the discussion by ignoring the science because of your anti- wild fish agenda.

it's simple hatchery fish are bad for wild fish get over it quit quibbling over the details any way you slice it the hood river study indicates that wild broodstocks are unlikely to be a long term viable option for either restoration or eliminating impacts on listed species in order to maintain harvest. Until they find out why there is a loss in reproductive fitness as soon as a fish is put in the hatchery. The best scenario for Hood river steelhead is no hatchery fish in the wild spawning population. and that is consistent with the other available science. Just because you don't like it doesn't make it false.
rob allen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-02-2014, 08:33 AM   #83
Ed Fast
Tuna!
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Mt. Tabor
Posts: 1,096
Default Re: Hatchery and Wild…. the movie

Quote:
Originally Posted by rob allen View Post
Keith. I am no fan of chambers creek fish.. and as i said i am all for experimentation what I am opposed to is blindly wanting untested wild brood programs . The guys i know who fish the Nestucca have seen a drop in wild populations there since the broodstock program began same as the Sandy.
I catch the same number of wilds on the Sandy as I did before the native broodstock program. The only thing I don't like is the increase in pressure at that time of year, but the numbers seem the same to me.

So far this year, most of the fish I have seen or heard of caught have been wild. Last year, we caught a LOT of big, nice, wild Steelhead!

SAME WITH WILD SPRING CHINOOK IN SPITE OF DECADES OF PLANTING HATCHERY FISH.

Ed
__________________
trying to be friends with everybody, since 2002
Ed Fast is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-02-2014, 08:36 AM   #84
rob allen
King Salmon
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Vancouver, WA
Posts: 5,574
Default Re: Hatchery and Wild…. the movie

Quote:
Originally Posted by Irie1 View Post
Dear Rob
If you have failed to read this. Here it is again. Every thread you get involved in rarely works out in your favor, and always goes sideways with your uneducated theories. PLEASE STOP. It's starting to get "ugly" and "stuff".
LOL too funny

Yeah it's me doing it... shut up the minority huh???


Blouin 2009: "If anyone ever had any doubts about the genetic differences between hatchery and wild fish, the data
are now pretty clear. The effect is so strong that it carries over into the first wild-born generation. Even if fish are
born in the wild and survive to reproduce, those adults that had hatchery parents still produce substantially fewer
surviving offspring than those with wild parents. That's pretty remarkable."

Blouin 2009: “The implication is that hatchery salmonids – many of which do survive to reproduce in the wild–
could be gradually reducing the fitness of the wild populations with which they interbreed. Those hatchery fish
provide one more hurdle to overcome in the goal of sustaining wild runs, along with problems caused by dams, loss
or degradation of habitat, pollution, overfishing and other causes. Aside from weakening the wild gene pool, the
release of captive-bred fish also raises the risk of introducing diseases and increasing competition for limited
resources.”

Buhle et al. 2009: “Our analyses highlight four critical factors influencing the productivity of these populations: (1)
negative density-dependent effects of hatchery-origin spawners were ~5 times greater than those of wild spawners;
(2) the productivity of wild salmon decreased as releases of hatchery juveniles increased; (3) salmon production was
positively related to an index of freshwater habitat quality; and (4) ocean conditions strongly affect productivity at
large spatial scales, potentially masking more localized drivers. These results suggest that hatchery programs’
unintended negative effects on wild salmon populations, and their role in salmon recovery, should be considered in
the context of other ecological drivers.”


Christie et al. 2011: “These results demonstrate that a single generation in captivity can result in a substantial
response to selection on traits that are beneficial in captivity but severely maladaptive in the wild. We also
documented a tradeoff among the wild-born broodstock: Those with the greatest fitness in a captive environment
produced offspring that performed the worst in the wild.”

Fleming and M.R. Gross 1993: “The divergence of hatchery fish in traits important for reproductive success has
raised concerns. This study shows that hatchery coho salmon males are competitively inferior to wild fish, and
attained only 62% of the breeding success of wild males. Hatchery females had more difficulty in spawning than
wild fish and hatchery fish had only 82% of the breeding success of wild fish. These results indicate hatchery fish
may pose an ecological and genetic threat to wild fish.”


Ford, 2002: “Substantial phenotypic changes and fitness reductions can occur even if a large fraction of the captive
broodstock is brought in from the wild every generation. This suggests that regularly bringing wild-origin
broodstock into captive populations cannot be relied upon to eliminate the effects of inadvertent domestication
selection


Ford 2010: “What is known from peer-reviewed scientific studies on the impact of hatchery salmonids on wild
salmonids? Hatchery fish reproductive success is poor; there is a large scale negative correlation between the
presence of hatchery fish and wild population performance; hatchery fish reproductive success is lower than for wild
fish and this is true for both supplementation and production hatchery programs; there is evidence of both
environmental and heritable effects; effects were detected for both release and proportion of hatchery spawners;
negative correlations between hatchery influence and wild productivity are widespread; habitat or ocean conditions
do not appear to explain the pattern; current science indicates that limiting natural spawning of hatchery fish is
generally beneficial to wild populations; there is evidence that reducing hatchery production leads to increased wild
production, and cumulative effects of hatchery could be a factor limiting recovery of some ESUs.”


ISAB 2002. “We believe that available empirical evidence demonstrates a potential for deleterious interactions, both
demographic and genetic, from allowing hatchery-origin salmon to spawn in the wild. Because it is virtually
impossible to ‘undo’ the genetic changes caused by allowing hatchery and wild salmon to interbreed, the ISAB
advocates great care in permitting hatchery-origin adult salmon to spawn in the wild.”


Jonsson et al. 1993: “Differences were evident for hatchery Atlantic salmon relative to wild salmon, with common
genetic backgrounds, in breeding success after a single generation in the hatchery. Hatchery females averaged about
80% the breeding success of wild females. Hatchery males had significantly reduced breeding success, averaging
about 65% of the success of wild males.”

Knudsen et al. 2006. “Perhaps the most important conclusion of our study is that even a hatchery program designed
to minimize differences between hatchery and wild fish did not produce fish that were identical to wild fish.”


Knudsen et al. 2008: “Consequently, in this project, on a per capita basis hatchery-origin females are a minimum of
6-7% less fit than wild fish owing to lower fecundity. This demonstrates that hatcheries do not produce fish that are
identical to wild fish.”


Lynch and O’Hely 2001: “Our results suggest that the apparent short-term demographic advantages of a
supplementation program can be quite deceiving. Unless the selective pressures of the captive environment are
closely managed to resemble those in the wild, long-term supplementation programs are expected to result in genetic
transformation that can eventually lead to natural population no longer capable of sustaining themselves.”


McLean et al. 2003: “Hatchery steelhead spawning in the wild had markedly lower reproductive success than native
wild steelhead. Wild females that spawned in 1996 produced 9 times as many adult offspring per capita as did
hatchery females that spawned in the wild. Wild females that spawned in 1997 produced 42 times as many adult
offspring as hatchery females. The wild steelhead population more than met replacement requirements
(approximately 3.7 – 6.7 adult offspring were produced per female), but the hatchery steelhead were far below
replacement (<0.5 adults per female).


Nickelson 1986: “Hatchery coho juveniles are more abundant after stocking in streams but the result is fewer adult
returns and fewer juvenile coho salmon in the next generation than in streams that were not stocked.”


Nickelson 2003: “Hatchery programs designed for harvest augmentation should be removed from basins with
habitat that has high potential to produce wild salmonids. To aid recovery of depressed wild salmon, the operation
of hatcheries must be changed to reduce interactions of hatchery smolts with wild smolts. A program that reduces
harvest, restores habitat, and reduces hatchery effects is necessary.”


NMFS 2010: “Hatchery production has been reduced to a small fraction of the natural-origin production. Nickelson
(2003) found that reduced hatchery production led directly to higher survival of naturally produced fish, and Buhle
et al. (2009) found that the reduction in hatchery releases of Oregon coast coho salmon in the mid1990's resulted in
increased natural coho salmon abundance.”



ODFW 2010: “Chilcote and Goodson examined data sets on population abundance for 121 populations of coho,
steelhead, and Chinook in Oregon, Washington, and Idaho. They found that population productivity was inversely
related to the average proportion of hatchery fish in the naturally-spawning population, consistent with the findings
of Buhle et al. (2009). The magnitude of this effect was substantial. For example, a population comprised entirely of
hatchery fish would have one tenth the intrinsic productivity of one comprised entirely of wild fish. There was no
indication that the significance or strength of this relationship was different among the three species examined
(chinook, coho and steelhead). In addition, there was no indication that the type of broodstock (integrated with the
local natural-origin population versus segregated) affected the significance or intensity of the response.” (Section 2:
Updating the Scientific Information in the 2008 FCRPS BiOp May 20, 2010, Page 118 and Lower Columbia River
Salmon Recovery Plan 9-2010 ODFW)


ODFW 2010a: “For example, the reduction in productivity between a population comprised entirely of wild fish and
one comprised of equal numbers of hatchery and wild fish is 66 percent for steelhead, 76 percent for coho, and 43
percent for Chinook.”



should i continue???

now i ask who more closely represents what the science says??? a broad range of scientists spanning decades.

as i have always said the best thing we can do for wild stocks is to keep hatchery fish from spawning in the wild and plant them in places and in numbers that minimize interactions between the two.

Last edited by rob allen; 02-02-2014 at 08:56 AM.
rob allen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-02-2014, 08:45 AM   #85
cosmo
Ifish Nate
 
cosmo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 2,602
Default Re: Hatchery and Wild…. the movie

Quote:
Originally Posted by rob allen View Post
Just because you don't like it doesn't make it false.
Being false makes it false. Has nothing to do with me.
cosmo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-02-2014, 08:46 AM   #86
Ed Fast
Tuna!
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Mt. Tabor
Posts: 1,096
Default Re: Hatchery and Wild…. the movie

By the way,

I am all for doing what's right for native, wild steelhead and salmon; just not wasting time, money and lawsuits on areas that don't need it, i.e., wild, (most likely non-native) Sandy River Spring Chinook.

As always, the answer is somewhere in the middle, and "cherry picking" data on BOTH sides doesn't do anybody any good.

Rob, if getting rid of hatchery fish would truly produce an awesome, wild steelhead and salmon fishery on the Sandy, I'd be all for it! That is the honest truth. I could increase my prices by 100 dollars a seat and sit with my hands in my pockets while my spey guys work a long run. Believe me, I'd rather do that than what I'm doing now.

Ed
__________________
trying to be friends with everybody, since 2002
Ed Fast is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-02-2014, 08:54 AM   #87
Fishtail
Tuna!
 
Fishtail's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Yamhill, Oregon
Posts: 1,318
Default Re: Hatchery and Wild…. the movie

Quote:
Originally Posted by rob allen View Post
and you poison the discussion by ignoring the science because of your anti- wild fish agenda.

it's simple hatchery fish are bad for wild fish get over it quit quibbling over the details any way you slice it the hood river study indicates that wild broodstocks are unlikely to be a long term viable option for either restoration or eliminating impacts on listed species in order to maintain harvest. Until they find out why there is a loss in reproductive fitness as soon as a fish is put in the hatchery. The best scenario for Hood river steelhead is no hatchery fish in the wild spawning population. and that is consistent with the other available science. Just because you don't like it doesn't make it false.
Mr. Allen you make numerous statements that you have not backed with independent, scientific evidence. Please provide to us where you get your non-biased, scientifically based information so you can "Put your name on it", otherwise you have no relevance in this discussion. Thank you
__________________
"A leader is a man who can adapt principles to circumstances."
- General George S. Patton, Jr
Fishtail is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-02-2014, 09:00 AM   #88
Jack Smith
Chromer
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Tillamook Oregon
Posts: 703
Default Re: Hatchery and Wild…. the movie

Quote:
Originally Posted by rob allen View Post
and you poison the discussion by ignoring the science because of your anti- wild fish agenda.

it's simple hatchery fish are bad for wild fish get over it quit quibbling over the details any way you slice it the hood river study indicates that wild broodstocks are unlikely to be a long term viable option for either restoration or eliminating impacts on listed species in order to maintain harvest. Until they find out why there is a loss in reproductive fitness as soon as a fish is put in the hatchery. The best scenario for Hood river steelhead is no hatchery fish in the wild spawning population. and that is consistent with the other available science. Just because you don't like it doesn't make it false.
Here are the population trends as indicated by the trap counts for winter steelhead on the Hood River from 1991 through 2001.

1991 632 wild fish passed, 273 H old passed, 0 H new passed

1992 350 wild fish passed, 5 H old passed, 0 H new passed

1993 304 wild fish passed, 2 H old passed, 0 H new passed

1994 160 wild fish passed, 0 H old passed, 6 H new passed

1995 212 wild fish passed, 0 H old passed, 161 H new passed

1996 242 wild fish passed, 0 H old passed, 249 H new passed

1997 184 wild fish passed, 0 H old passed, 162 H new passed

1998 258 wild fish passed, 0 H old passed, 186 H new passed

1999 875 wild fish passed, 0 H old passed, 222 H new passed

2000 883 wild fish passed, 0 H old passed, 657 H new passed

2001 954 wild fish passed, 0 H old passed, 682 H new passed


You will notice that as the hatchery stock was switched to wild broodstock the wild population increased not decreased.

Adult recruitment per spawner was 1.5 in 1995, 3.2 in 1996, 2.0 in 1997, 2.5 in 1998. This is hardly indicative of a population that is being devastated by hatchery influence as you would have us believe.
__________________
Jack Smith


"When you get in the end zone you otta act like you been there before."

Last edited by Jack Smith; 02-02-2014 at 09:02 AM.
Jack Smith is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-02-2014, 09:12 AM   #89
GS1
Coho
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 94
Default Re: Hatchery and Wild…. the movie

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fishtail View Post
Mr. Allen you make numerous statements that you have not backed with independent, scientific evidence. Please provide to us where you get your non-biased, scientifically based information so you can "Put your name on it", otherwise you have no relevance in this discussion. Thank you
Sorry to say Mr Fishtail, but when you point a finger at Mr Allen, your thumb is pointing back at you. Mr Allen has been posting data acquired over the last 30/40 years by others. If it is because you do not like the results of others, get out and do some studies yourself. It will take at least three to five life cycles to conduct a relevant study.
GS1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-02-2014, 09:29 AM   #90
rob allen
King Salmon
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Vancouver, WA
Posts: 5,574
Default Re: Hatchery and Wild…. the movie

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jack Smith View Post
Here are the population trends as indicated by the trap counts for winter steelhead on the Hood River from 1991 through 2001.

1991 632 wild fish passed, 273 H old passed, 0 H new passed

1992 350 wild fish passed, 5 H old passed, 0 H new passed

1993 304 wild fish passed, 2 H old passed, 0 H new passed

1994 160 wild fish passed, 0 H old passed, 6 H new passed

1995 212 wild fish passed, 0 H old passed, 161 H new passed

1996 242 wild fish passed, 0 H old passed, 249 H new passed

1997 184 wild fish passed, 0 H old passed, 162 H new passed

1998 258 wild fish passed, 0 H old passed, 186 H new passed

1999 875 wild fish passed, 0 H old passed, 222 H new passed

2000 883 wild fish passed, 0 H old passed, 657 H new passed

2001 954 wild fish passed, 0 H old passed, 682 H new passed


You will notice that as the hatchery stock was switched to wild broodstock the wild population increased not decreased.

Adult recruitment per spawner was 1.5 in 1995, 3.2 in 1996, 2.0 in 1997, 2.5 in 1998. This is hardly indicative of a population that is being devastated by hatchery influence as you would have us believe.

the population was down in the 90's and then went up as the 90's ended???? astonishing! hmmm all the other rivers did the same thing during that time period..
at least that's what you guys tell me when I use very similar data from the Wind river.


what have counts looked like for the last 10 years???
rob allen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-02-2014, 10:16 AM   #91
Jack Smith
Chromer
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Tillamook Oregon
Posts: 703
Default Re: Hatchery and Wild…. the movie

Quote:
Originally Posted by rob allen View Post
the population was down in the 90's and then went up as the 90's ended???? astonishing! hmmm all the other rivers did the same thing during that time period..
at least that's what you guys tell me when I use very similar data from the Wind river.

Sop we agree, like the Wind River the Hood River population tracks identical to other rivers in the area weather or not there is a hatchery program present.

what have counts looked like for the last 10 years???

Hard to say. The Dam has been removed making accurate counts unavailable.
"Adult recruitment per spawner was 1.5 in 1995, 3.2 in 1996, 2.0 in 1997, 2.5 in 1998. This is hardly indicative of a population that is being devastated by hatchery influence as you would have us believe."

Those are some pretty impressive recruitment rates for a river that was stalked with Big Creek hatchery stock for decades before switching to the much better wild brood stock fish.
__________________
Jack Smith


"When you get in the end zone you otta act like you been there before."
Jack Smith is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-02-2014, 10:49 AM   #92
Chance
Tuna!
 
Chance's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Washington
Posts: 1,499
Default Re: Hatchery and Wild…. the movie

Quote:
Originally Posted by rob allen View Post
"“We’ve known for some time that hatchery-born fish are less successful at survival and reproduction in the wild,” said Michael Blouin, a professor of zoology at Oregon State University. “However, until now, it wasn’t clear why. What this study shows is that intense evolutionary pressures in the hatchery rapidly select for fish that excel there, at the expense of their reproductive success in the wild.”"

85% was the number quoted by the biologist in the video. I assumed you guys would accept "facts" from that video as gospel.
You can't use a figure in one post, suggest it is fact by theorizing a perpetual decline, and then turn it around and say it was other people using that figure.

Quote:
Originally Posted by rob allen View Post
Blouin says in his studies that tha ability to use wild broodstock programs to enhance steelhead runs in "untested"
If this was true, why would he write this:

"Fish from new, conservation hatchery stock have fitness that is about equal to that of wild fish (less than wild in two years, greater than in the third year). The same pattern is apparent whether one examines the relative fitness of individual parents or that of pairs that left at least one offspring. The similar fitnesses Hnew x W and W x W pairs, suggests that having Hnew fish in the system is probably not obviously dragging down the fitness of the wild population for genetic reasons (as might have been expected under some models; e.g. Lynch and O’Hely, 2001). Thus, the conservation hatchery program appears to have added a demographic boost to the population without having obvious negative genetic consequences-at least in regards the effects of domestication selection and mutation accumulation that should occur in the hatchery. We have not yet conducted a formal analysis of the effect of the hatchery program on the effective size of the wild population (e.g. Ryman et al., 1995), but the high levels of microsatellite diversity we still observe in both runs suggest that reduced effective size is not a problem."

Blouin 2003, Hood River Steelhead Genetics Study, pg. 22.

Quote:
Originally Posted by rob allen View Post
If you really want to quibble about numbers I am not interested. I am interested in keeping you and others from misinforming the public at large.
This sentence pretty much sums up your history of anti-hatchery rhetoric on ifish. You use unsupported claims, theories and figures, but when someone can effectively contradict your claims by providing evidence you discount their argument and pretend you have more important things to do. You used this 85% figure without understanding what it meant or grasping its relevance and you have back-tracked in an attempt to save face.

The issue here is that you really don't have an understanding of fisheries science yet you incessantly accuse others of cherry-picking data, and/or not knowing what they're talking about.

You want to know what I find especially intriguing about you? Fisheries biologists who contribute on ifish regularly tell you that your theories and assumptions are misguided, wrong, improperly extrapolated, highly subjective, or flat-out lies. Despite this, you have the nerve to continue telling people that you're right and everyone else is wrong, including the biologists.
Chance is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-02-2014, 11:04 AM   #93
Royal2
Steelhead
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Coast Range
Posts: 129
Default Re: Hatchery and Wild…. the movie

You want to know what I find especially intriguing about you? Fisheries biologists who contribute on ifish regularly tell you that your theories and assumptions are misguided, wrong, improperly extrapolated, highly subjective, or flat-out lies. Despite this, you have the nerve to continue telling people that you're right and everyone else is wrong, including the biologists.[/QUOTE]


__________________
Anything in life worth doing is worth overdoing. Moderation is for cowards.
Royal2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-02-2014, 11:17 AM   #94
MsOutdrs
King Salmon
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Oregon City, Oregon
Posts: 6,980
Default Re: Hatchery and Wild…. the movie

Quote:
Originally Posted by Royal2 View Post
You want to know what I find especially intriguing about you? Fisheries biologists who contribute on ifish regularly tell you that your theories and assumptions are misguided, wrong, improperly extrapolated, highly subjective, or flat-out lies. Despite this, you have the nerve to continue telling people that you're right and everyone else is wrong, including the biologists.

[/QUOTE]

Royal...I missed that. Can you tell me who said it and to whom. Thanks
MsOutdrs is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-02-2014, 11:23 AM   #95
steelymann
Tuna!
 
steelymann's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Salmon Creek
Posts: 1,391
Default Re: Hatchery and Wild…. the movie

Good stuff Doc. Sat down with my 7 year old and he enjoyed it as well. He wants fish for his kids too
__________________
~steelymann~
Team Maxima
steelymann is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-02-2014, 11:27 AM   #96
freespool
King Salmon
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: woodstock
Posts: 14,763
Default Re: Hatchery and Wild…. the movie

Quote:
Originally Posted by Royal2 View Post
You want to know what I find especially intriguing about you? Fisheries biologists who contribute on ifish regularly tell you that your theories and assumptions are misguided, wrong, improperly extrapolated, highly subjective, or flat-out lies. Despite this, you have the nerve to continue telling people that you're right and everyone else is wrong, including the biologists.

[/QUOTE]


Yet when their Doctor tells them something they believe it without question.
Why, because it's in their best interests to do what their Doctor tells them to do.
But when biologist tell them hatchery fish breeding with wild fish is a bad thing, there's a complete disconnect, why?
Because it isn't in their best interests.
__________________
salmon hugger





"A curious thing happens when fish stocks decline: People who aren't aware of the old levels accept the new ones as normal. Over generations, societies adjust their expectations downward to match prevailing conditions." Kennedy Wame
freespool is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-02-2014, 11:45 AM   #97
Royal2
Steelhead
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Coast Range
Posts: 129
Default Re: Hatchery and Wild…. the movie

Quote:
Originally Posted by MsOutdrs View Post
Royal...I missed that. Can you tell me who said it and to whom. Thanks[/QUOTE]


Trying to agree with Chance...LOL!
__________________
Anything in life worth doing is worth overdoing. Moderation is for cowards.
Royal2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-02-2014, 11:55 AM   #98
Royal2
Steelhead
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Coast Range
Posts: 129
Default Re: Hatchery and Wild…. the movie

Quote:
Originally Posted by freespool View Post

Yet when their Doctor tells them something they believe it without question.
Why, because it's in their best interests to do what their Doctor tells them to do.
But when biologist tell them hatchery fish breeding with wild fish is a bad thing, there's a complete disconnect, why?
Because it isn't in their best interests.[/QUOTE]


Freespool, can you tell me why we should not do brood stock programs on every river? I don't have near the understanding that someone like Chance or Jack Smith does, but it sure seems like a win, win. I guess I can see the logic in not watering down the rivers with a different strain, but when you have native parents, who cares if they cross breed with the natives down the road? Seems like we are splitting hairs.

Doesn't the evidence seem to indicate that brood stock programs have actually helped native populations increase?
__________________
Anything in life worth doing is worth overdoing. Moderation is for cowards.
Royal2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-02-2014, 12:06 PM   #99
freespool
King Salmon
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: woodstock
Posts: 14,763
Default Re: Hatchery and Wild…. the movie

Quote:
Originally Posted by Royal2 View Post

Doesn't the evidence seem to indicate that brood stock programs have actually helped native populations increase?

Honestly, no it does not, any fish raised in todays hatchery has a marked traits that are not conducive with high survival rates.
And that's what is driving the new hatchery reforms, unless your in total denial as to what is really driving these changes.
__________________
salmon hugger





"A curious thing happens when fish stocks decline: People who aren't aware of the old levels accept the new ones as normal. Over generations, societies adjust their expectations downward to match prevailing conditions." Kennedy Wame
freespool is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-02-2014, 12:08 PM   #100
Fishtail
Tuna!
 
Fishtail's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Yamhill, Oregon
Posts: 1,318
Default Re: Hatchery and Wild…. the movie

Quote:
Originally Posted by GS1 View Post
Sorry to say Mr Fishtail, but when you point a finger at Mr Allen, your thumb is pointing back at you. Mr Allen has been posting data acquired over the last 30/40 years by others. If it is because you do not like the results of others, get out and do some studies yourself. It will take at least three to five life cycles to conduct a relevant study.
Gs1, I've not made any claims in what I said and only requested non-biased scientific information. Mr. Allen and apparently you as well want everyone to buy off on anti-hatchery propaganda just because you say it is bad. Mr. Allen does have relevance by bringing together sport, commercial and tribal fishermen to collectively fight NFS and any other terroristic organization that wants to end all hatcheries through the way of litigation.

Game on!!
__________________
"A leader is a man who can adapt principles to circumstances."
- General George S. Patton, Jr
Fishtail is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-02-2014, 12:12 PM   #101
wack0
Chromer
 
wack0's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Hillsboro, Oregon
Posts: 640
Default Re: Hatchery and Wild…. the movie

The web site has a petition. Don't forget to read it and if you want to get involved and agree with what it says, sign it and stay involved.
__________________
Take my offering for it is all that I have, and I will feast on your enraged surrender.
wack0 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-02-2014, 12:12 PM   #102
freespool
King Salmon
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: woodstock
Posts: 14,763
Default Re: Hatchery and Wild…. the movie

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fishtail View Post
Gs1, I've not made any claims in what I said and only requested non-biased scientific information. Mr. Allen and apparently you as well want everyone to buy off on anti-hatchery propaganda just because you say it is bad. Mr. Allen does have relevance by bringing together sport, commercial and tribal fishermen to collectively fight NFS and any other terroristic organization that wants to end all hatcheries through the way of litigation.

Game on!!

To really understand what's happening and why, you need to read this link first.


http://www.lltk.org/hrp-archive/pdf/...ystem_Recs.pdf



Over the period of this project, the HSRG has developed a thorough understanding about applying
existing science to hatchery management. After three years of regional reviews, the HSRG concluded
that while any individual program may be successful in broodstock collection, rearing or other
operational considerations, it may still be operating in a manner that does not, for example, adequately
take into account risks to other stocks or to the environment, maximize benefits to the target stock, or
consider whether adequate habitat will be available over time for the fish it produces.
__________________
salmon hugger





"A curious thing happens when fish stocks decline: People who aren't aware of the old levels accept the new ones as normal. Over generations, societies adjust their expectations downward to match prevailing conditions." Kennedy Wame

Last edited by freespool; 02-02-2014 at 12:13 PM.
freespool is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-02-2014, 12:53 PM   #103
Jack Smith
Chromer
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Tillamook Oregon
Posts: 703
Default Re: Hatchery and Wild…. the movie

Quote:
Originally Posted by freespool View Post
To really understand what's happening and why, you need to read this link first.


http://www.lltk.org/hrp-archive/pdf/...ystem_Recs.pdf




Over the period of this project, the HSRG has developed a thorough understanding about applying


existing science to hatchery management. After three years of regional reviews, the HSRG concluded


that while any individual program may be successful in broodstock collection, rearing or other


operational considerations, it may still be operating in a manner that does not, for example, adequately


take into account risks to other stocks or to the environment, maximize benefits to the target stock, or

consider whether adequate habitat will be available over time for the fish it produces.
HSRG also gives recommendations on how to operate a wild brood stock (Integrated) hatchery program so that any real or perceived risk is reduced to an acceptable level. They recommend having more wild fish in your brood, they endorse the principle of Proportion of Natural Influence (PNI) which determines acceptable stray rates based on the percentage of natural origin spawners that are used in the brood stock and the all H management principle which considers harvest, hatcheries and habitat.

HSRG scientists have a multitude of recommendations for hatchery operations most of which hatcheries in Oregon meet or exceed.
__________________
Jack Smith


"When you get in the end zone you otta act like you been there before."
Jack Smith is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-02-2014, 02:19 PM   #104
freespool
King Salmon
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: woodstock
Posts: 14,763
Default Re: Hatchery and Wild…. the movie

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jack Smith View Post

HSRG scientists have a multitude of recommendations for hatchery operations most of which hatcheries in Oregon meet or exceed.

Then how do you account for the latest court decision?
There's at least one Judge that doesn't think they are doing what the HSRG said.
Looks like you'll get your day in court, so if what you say is true, then there shouldn't be any problem.
__________________
salmon hugger





"A curious thing happens when fish stocks decline: People who aren't aware of the old levels accept the new ones as normal. Over generations, societies adjust their expectations downward to match prevailing conditions." Kennedy Wame
freespool is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-02-2014, 02:31 PM   #105
rob allen
King Salmon
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Vancouver, WA
Posts: 5,574
Default Re: Hatchery and Wild…. the movie

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chance View Post
You can't use a figure in one post, suggest it is fact by theorizing a perpetual decline, and then turn it around and say it was other people using that figure.



If this was true, why would he write this:

"Fish from new, conservation hatchery stock have fitness that is about equal to that of wild fish (less than wild in two years, greater than in the third year). The same pattern is apparent whether one examines the relative fitness of individual parents or that of pairs that left at least one offspring. The similar fitnesses Hnew x W and W x W pairs, suggests that having Hnew fish in the system is probably not obviously dragging down the fitness of the wild population for genetic reasons (as might have been expected under some models; e.g. Lynch and O’Hely, 2001). Thus, the conservation hatchery program appears to have added a demographic boost to the population without having obvious negative genetic consequences-at least in regards the effects of domestication selection and mutation accumulation that should occur in the hatchery. We have not yet conducted a formal analysis of the effect of the hatchery program on the effective size of the wild population (e.g. Ryman et al., 1995), but the high levels of microsatellite diversity we still observe in both runs suggest that reduced effective size is not a problem."

Blouin 2003, Hood River Steelhead Genetics Study, pg. 22.



This sentence pretty much sums up your history of anti-hatchery rhetoric on ifish. You use unsupported claims, theories and figures, but when someone can effectively contradict your claims by providing evidence you discount their argument and pretend you have more important things to do. You used this 85% figure without understanding what it meant or grasping its relevance and you have back-tracked in an attempt to save face.

The issue here is that you really don't have an understanding of fisheries science yet you incessantly accuse others of cherry-picking data, and/or not knowing what they're talking about.

You want to know what I find especially intriguing about you? Fisheries biologists who contribute on ifish regularly tell you that your theories and assumptions are misguided, wrong, improperly extrapolated, highly subjective, or flat-out lies. Despite this, you have the nerve to continue telling people that you're right and everyone else is wrong, including the biologists.



I have never accused anyone of cherry picking data.


"In my opinion, the question of whether genetic change occurs in hatcheries has been answered," Blouin said. "If we could quit arguing about that and find out why, then we're all on the same team again."

"These are the first data to show that a supplementation program with native brood stock can provide a single-generation boost to the size of a natural steelhead population without obvious short-term fitness costs. The long-term effects of population supplementation remain untested."



I just supported my claims with dozens of excerpts from studies done over several decades. far more than you ever do. you may be smarter than me that doesn't make you right.

the fact remains as I have said dozens if not hundreds of times.
The best thing we can do for our wild stocks where hatcheries are concerned is to keep them from spawning in the wild and plant them in numbers and locations so as to reduce their interactions with wild fish..

now if you want to argue against that don't bring it up here on Ifish in an attempt to mislead people, take it up with the biologists who perform the studies..
I have not misrepresented anything.

now.. go watch the game.
rob allen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-02-2014, 02:46 PM   #106
stillinscrubs
Tuna!
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 1,188
Default Re: Hatchery and Wild…. the movie

Quote:
Originally Posted by wack0 View Post
The web site has a petition. Don't forget to read it and if you want to get involved and agree with what it says, sign it and stay involved.
Which website?
stillinscrubs is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-02-2014, 07:17 PM   #107
Fishtail
Tuna!
 
Fishtail's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Yamhill, Oregon
Posts: 1,318
Default Re: Hatchery and Wild…. the movie

Quote:
Originally Posted by freespool View Post
Then how do you account for the latest court decision?
There's at least one Judge that doesn't think they are doing what the HSRG said.
Looks like you'll get your day in court, so if what you say is true, then there shouldn't be any problem.
That my friend is the reason why we can appeal these flawed decisions.
__________________
"A leader is a man who can adapt principles to circumstances."
- General George S. Patton, Jr
Fishtail is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-03-2014, 07:10 AM   #108
GS1
Coho
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 94
Default Re: Hatchery and Wild…. the movie

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fishtail View Post
Gs1, I've not made any claims in what I said and only requested non-biased scientific information. Mr. Allen and apparently you as well want everyone to buy off on anti-hatchery propaganda just because you say it is bad. Mr. Allen does have relevance by bringing together sport, commercial and tribal fishermen to collectively fight NFS and any other terroristic organization that wants to end all hatcheries through the way of litigation.

Game on!!
Fishtail...."I've not made any claims in what I said and only requested non-biased scientific information." I asked you the for same thing. Also, do not imply that you know what side of the fence I am on.
GS1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-03-2014, 07:21 AM   #109
Bait Bucket
King Salmon
 
Bait Bucket's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 9,596
Default Re: Hatchery and Wild…. the movie

I signed. Good video.
Bait Bucket is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-03-2014, 08:38 AM   #110
XXX archer
 
XXX archer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: St.Helens
Posts: 1,530
Default Re: Hatchery and Wild…. the movie

Quote:
Originally Posted by stillinscrubs View Post
Which website?

www.hatcheryandwild.com
__________________
Dustin......
XXX archer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-03-2014, 04:05 PM   #111
Siwash
Ifish Nate
 
Siwash's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Eugene, OR
Posts: 3,413
Default Re: Hatchery and Wild…. the movie

Quote:
Originally Posted by orbrewking View Post
Took my 17 year old boy to the movie and we enjoyed it other than the predictable lousy service and preparation I have come to expect at McMenamins. The people are always real nice, but they just don't have their acts together as far as quality service goes, IMHO.

I was pretty happy my teenage boy paid attention and tried to understand the issues and form his own real opinion...this stuff can be complicated for most adults to understand, much less a kid.

Remember to sign the petition!
Well at least there's one thing we can surely ALL agree on!
Siwash is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-03-2014, 08:22 PM   #112
stlhdr1
Sturgeon
 
stlhdr1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Battle Ground WA
Posts: 4,746
Default Re: Hatchery and Wild…. the movie

Quote:
Originally Posted by rob allen View Post
the population was down in the 90's and then went up as the 90's ended???? astonishing! hmmm all the other rivers did the same thing during that time period..
at least that's what you guys tell me when I use very similar data from the Wind river.


what have counts looked like for the last 10 years???
Rob, I become more and more disgusted when I realize your agenda...

Do you remember the conversation mid summer last year? I find it entertaining that we have been down the path of "no hatchery plants" in your favorite river, THE WIND RIVER.

The fact is no matter what's decided, the carrying capacity of most rivers can't and will not sustain fishing pressure/harvest on "native-only runs" in regards to steelhead. Your WIND RIVER hasn't had hatchery steelhead plants since 1998. It still averages 600 Wild fish returning.

IS that really that impressive? If the wind river had a wild brood stock program we could trump the carrying capacity and actually have a fishery to fish on and perhaps a catch and kill fishery. I mean if maximum carrying capacity is 600 and there were that many left for escapement after brood stock harvest, wouldn't that work?

Keith

Last edited by stlhdr1; 02-03-2014 at 08:23 PM.
stlhdr1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-03-2014, 08:38 PM   #113
rob allen
King Salmon
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Vancouver, WA
Posts: 5,574
Default Re: Hatchery and Wild…. the movie

Quote:
Originally Posted by stlhdr1 View Post
Rob, I become more and more disgusted when I realize your agenda...

Do you remember the conversation mid summer last year? I find it entertaining that we have been down the path of "no hatchery plants" in your favorite river, THE WIND RIVER.

The fact is no matter what's decided, the carrying capacity of most rivers can't and will not sustain fishing pressure/harvest on "native-only runs" in regards to steelhead. Your WIND RIVER hasn't had hatchery steelhead plants since 1998. It still averages 600 Wild fish returning.

IS that really that impressive? If the wind river had a wild brood stock program we could trump the carrying capacity and actually have a fishery to fish on and perhaps a catch and kill fishery. I mean if maximum carrying capacity is 600 and there were that many left for escapement after brood stock harvest, wouldn't that work?

Keith

hmmm i guess different things disgust different people. what disgusts me is thinking that the purpose of every rivers fish only have value if they die


ask anyone at the region 5 office what they think of the wind river..


funny how the double standard works.. you can use the argument but i can't???

Last edited by rob allen; 02-03-2014 at 08:51 PM.
rob allen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-03-2014, 08:47 PM   #114
stlhdr1
Sturgeon
 
stlhdr1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Battle Ground WA
Posts: 4,746
Default Re: Hatchery and Wild…. the movie

Quote:
Originally Posted by rob allen View Post
hmmm i guess different things disgust different people. what disgusts me is thinking that the purpose of every rivers fish only have value if they die
Ironically, I knew that would be your response...

But your little pet the "Wind River" screams the truth. It hasn't had hatchery steelhead plants since 1998, what more do you want out of that river that the 600 fish average it gets?

What do you actually want out of all the other rivers you want hatchery fish removed from?

Keith
stlhdr1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-03-2014, 10:55 PM   #115
SS_Fishing
Steelhead
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 114
Default Re: Hatchery and Wild…. the movie

On a side note. Just heard there were some beautiful native redside trout tagged on the McKenzie a while back to track their habits and movement. Can you guess where most of them ended up? Four of the tagged trout ended up in trees and four others where lost completely! It wasn't cured eggs that killed them, or a nightcrawler from one of those pesky bait fisherman or hatchery fish eating all of their food. The birds are lucky that the hatchery fish are taking all the blame. Can't believe cormorants can take 24 inch trout that far out of the water!
SS_Fishing is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-04-2014, 05:35 AM   #116
rob allen
King Salmon
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Vancouver, WA
Posts: 5,574
Default Re: Hatchery and Wild…. the movie

Quote:
Originally Posted by stlhdr1 View Post
Ironically, I knew that would be your response...

But your little pet the "Wind River" screams the truth. It hasn't had hatchery steelhead plants since 1998, what more do you want out of that river that the 600 fish average it gets?

What do you actually want out of all the other rivers you want hatchery fish removed from?

Keith

Keith I do not want anything from them other than to have wild steelhead populations that are not in danger of becoming extinct. Which the Wind has now become. so eliminating the hatchery run has increased the population by an average of about 200. hmm a 50% increase.... hmm imagine what would happen if we did it on a river that had more habitat and less poaching..
rob allen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-04-2014, 09:36 AM   #117
Wild Chrome
Sturgeon
 
Wild Chrome's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: In The River
Posts: 3,739
Default Re: Hatchery and Wild…. the movie

Well, I finally got around to watching the video and, whereas I do see an decent argument there regarding the value of hatcheries, I also do think it was obviously biased toward the guides' and fishing industry's short-term interests and did cherry pick, not only the data, but also the interviews. They clearly edited out Michael Blouin's conclusion about the Hood River data, showing for about 3 seconds of a partial image of the abstract from the study conclusion. For those of you that cannot read 100 words a second, here's the abstract. Note the conclusion at the bottom, which was edited out of the video:

http://www.pnas.org/content/109/1/238
Abstract

Captive breeding programs are widely used for the conservation and restoration of threatened and endangered species. Nevertheless, captive-born individuals frequently have reduced fitness when reintroduced into the wild. The mechanism for these fitness declines has remained elusive, but hypotheses include environmental effects of captive rearing, inbreeding among close relatives, relaxed natural selection, and unintentional domestication selection (adaptation to captivity). We used a multigenerational pedigree analysis to demonstrate that domestication selection can explain the precipitous decline in fitness observed in hatchery steelhead released into the Hood River in Oregon. After returning from the ocean, wild-born and first-generation hatchery fish were used as broodstock in the hatchery, and their offspring were released into the wild as smolts. First-generation hatchery fish had nearly double the lifetime reproductive success (measured as the number of returning adult offspring) when spawned in captivity compared with wild fish spawned under identical conditions, which is a clear demonstration of adaptation to captivity. We also documented a tradeoff among the wild-born broodstock: Those with the greatest fitness in a captive environment produced offspring that performed the worst in the wild. Specifically, captive-born individuals with five (the median) or more returning siblings (i.e., offspring of successful broodstock) averaged 0.62 returning offspring in the wild, whereas captive-born individuals with less than five siblings averaged 2.05 returning offspring in the wild. These results demonstrate that a single generation in captivity can result in a substantial response to selection on traits that are beneficial in captivity but severely maladaptive in the wild.

I'm not opposed to hatcheries, in fact I'd like to see plants increased in some rivers. Based on the science I've read and my understanding of ESA and the ethic behind it, I support gene banks and think their establishment, on rivers with the best habitat (Sol Duc, Sandy), is in all of our best interest. I see this video as just more biased propaganda.

Anybody else notice the farm-raised salmon fillet showed at the end?
__________________
"Nothing is more priceless and more worthy of preservation than the rich array of animal life with which our country has been blessed"................... Richard Nixon (on signing ESA into law)

Wild Chrome is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-04-2014, 12:19 PM   #118
stlhdr1
Sturgeon
 
stlhdr1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Battle Ground WA
Posts: 4,746
Default Re: Hatchery and Wild…. the movie

Quote:
Originally Posted by rob allen View Post
so eliminating the hatchery run has increased the population by an average of about 200. hmm a 50% increase.... hmm imagine what would happen if we did it on a river that had more habitat and less poaching..
See, IMHO you are admitting nothing more than denial with this answer. You are using excuses as to why after nearly 14 years the Wind hasn't exploded with a wild fish population. How many years must we wait for that river to really take off or have we seen it's maximum carrying capacity observed?

For me, I can't get behind the science in full force as you have and are preaching here. It appears we have 2 decisions to choose from.

1. Yank the hatchery fish and expect natural fish to resume their life at #'s that aren't enough to fish on let alone catch and kill.

2. we can brood stock some of these rivers and trump the carrying capacity and have fish to catch and kill...

I like plan #2 personally, I don't want to see any more rivers closed. But I'm all for some better hatchery plans, removing out of basin stocks.

Keith
stlhdr1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-04-2014, 04:18 PM   #119
ORwaterfowler
Steelhead
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 192
Default Re: Hatchery and Wild…. the movie

Quote:
Originally Posted by stlhdr1 View Post
Ironically, I knew that would be your response...

But your little pet the "Wind River" screams the truth. It hasn't had hatchery steelhead plants since 1998, what more do you want out of that river that the 600 fish average it gets?

What do you actually want out of all the other rivers you want hatchery fish removed from?

Keith
Access to habitat. Hemlock dam removal.

http://www.ifish.net/board/showthread.php?t=246037

"Trout Creek historically produced 40% of the Wind Rivers wild steelhead populations. By removing Hemlock Dam we will restore access to prime habitat for these fish."

The dam was removed in 2009. How fast would you expect returns off that investment?
ORwaterfowler is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-04-2014, 06:25 PM   #120
rob allen
King Salmon
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Vancouver, WA
Posts: 5,574
Default Re: Hatchery and Wild…. the movie

Quote:
Originally Posted by stlhdr1 View Post
See, IMHO you are admitting nothing more than denial with this answer. You are using excuses as to why after nearly 14 years the Wind hasn't exploded with a wild fish population. How many years must we wait for that river to really take off or have we seen it's maximum carrying capacity observed?

For me, I can't get behind the science in full force as you have and are preaching here. It appears we have 2 decisions to choose from.

1. Yank the hatchery fish and expect natural fish to resume their life at #'s that aren't enough to fish on let alone catch and kill.

2. we can brood stock some of these rivers and trump the carrying capacity and have fish to catch and kill...

I like plan #2 personally, I don't want to see any more rivers closed. But I'm all for some better hatchery plans, removing out of basin stocks.

Keith


Keith Wind river steelhead were headed towards extinction. removing the hatchery fish and restoring the habitat has reaped great rewards whether you get to go kill them or not, poaching is a huge problem on the Wind because the locals are in essence taking out their anger on the fish. a guy I work with has friends who routinely brag about it. At any rate Wind river steelhead are now not in danger of going extinct.

Furthermore your average of 600 misses the fact that some of those years were over 1000. higher counts than we have had since the 60's plus the river is still very heavily planted with spring chinook that force wild steelhead at all life stages into less suitable habitat.

I wish we could have plenty of fish for everyone to harvest in any river they choose but history has shown definitively that that type of management leads to extinction and poor fishing.

add into the fact also that wild broodstocks are not an option for our local rivers because our wild populations are all IHN positive and IHN goes nuts in the hatchery environment.

we all want to have our cake and eat it too however that portion of history and left in it's wake the destruction we have today.

fishing doesn't suck because we aren't planting hatchery fish fishing sucks because our hatchery fish are performing poorly.
rob allen is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Cast to



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 06:37 AM.

Terms of Service
Page generated in 1.41599 seconds with 82 queries