wild steelhead ban divides washington anglers

[boater]

Thursday, February 12, 2004

Wild steelhead ban divides area anglers

By GREG JOHNSTON
SEATTLE POST-INTELLIGENCER REPORTER

A two-year moratorium on the killing of any wild steelhead in Washington waters, enacted by the state Fish and Wildlife Commission last Friday, has raised a storm of debate among anglers.

The moratorium, passed on a 5-3 vote, requires that anglers release alive any steelhead with an intact adipose fin from April 1 through March 31, 2006. The adipose fins of hatchery-reared steelhead are clipped before release.

Anglers are already required to release wild steelhead in most Washington rivers, but are allowed to kill one per day on a handful of north coastal rivers where state biologist say wild stocks are healthy and abundant.

Despite those claims, many anglers have been clamoring for the past few years for a statewide ban on the retention of wild steelhead, arguing that the state's record of protecting wild runs is pitiful and that with increasing angling pressure, the few remaining robust runs could be over-fished. Other anglers argue, however, that state surveys show north coastal runs are abundant well beyond spawning needs and that if anglers quit taking the fish, treaty tribal net fishermen will seek to catch them.

"There's a lot of anger on the river,' said Tom Mathews, state catch sampler on the Quillayute River system. "People are very angry and talking about lawsuits."

The vote, which was not on the commission agenda and came as a surprise to many, is sparking debate not only on the river but also on local Internet fishing forums.

"It's really divisive, and if we want to save these fish, steelheaders should be pulling together," said Curt Kraemer, Department of Fish and Wildlife biologist for north Puget Sound rivers.

[Straydog]

The fishing public should be outraged at such a broad brushed approach to managment. I am glad to read that they are. Thanks for posting!

[Born to be Wild]

Well after some heated debating about this subject on a thread I started last week, I can see I'm not alone in thinking this was not a smart move.

It was good meeting you at the Puyallup show Boater and you'll have to get down here and learn a few of my zipper holes this fall.

I have invites to fish the Olympic Pennsula but am not even interested in going up there to release a wild steelhead.

I wouldn't be surprised if my friend in Depoe Bay cancels his anual trip up there this year also.

Makes absolutely no sense in a biological sense of management.

Well, what's next?

Get rid of the retention of wild coho on the Naeselle, Satsop, Chehalis and other rivers?

Why not just put a "blanket" all over the entire state and manage for tribal and non tribal gill net commercial fishermen and make up for it by pumping in millions of hatchery fish and see if we cannot kill off the remaining Washington wild fish!

I surely love the Longview area but WDFW needs to take a look at their close neighbor to the south and learn something from them.

I would like to completely get away from fishing polotics but I am afraid with these clowns in office and on the commission, I'm going to have to get involved!

Dano

[rob allen]

No one should keep a wild steelhead anywhere ever period... With such abundant hatchery runs of steelhead anyo0ne who keeps a wild steelhead has NO right whatsoever to claim to care about the future of these runs. Washington state has gone from 32 healthy rivers to 16 to now 11. all within the last few years.. WDFW has proved that it does not know how to manage wild steelhead. Our current conditions are syptomatic of their inability to manage steelhead fisheries. and it alsp point out the complete failure of maximum sustained yield as a managment tool.
You simply cannot harvest the maximum amount ever year and expect to have much left.. There are no healthy steelhead runs in the state of Washington.. NOT ONE..
anyone who kills or wants to kill a wild steelhead has no right to say anything about tribal gil netters, commercial gil netters or even poachers or anything else that is bad for wild steelhead..

This 2 year end of sport harvest is 1. good..2 smart.. 3. the morally correct course of action and yes I mean that it's what God wants us to do. Actually He would have prefered we never harvest them to near extinction in the first place... After all these fish belong to Him not us...

[Born to be Wild]

Well Rob, I will post this quote by one of the commisioner's again that I posted just days ago on the other thread:

"I can't support banning retention of wild steelhead on rivers where stocks are healthy and returns are strong," Roehl said. "I don't think this broad-brush action is warranted, but that appears to be the will of commission."

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">So it appears that your opinion and Mr. Roehl's opinion differ on what is healthy and what is not.

On your opinion on what God would have us do, I believe I have read a few times where Jesus himself went out fishing and fed the multitudes?

I don't believe they had hatchery fish back then so I would suspect Jesus was harvesting "wild fish". :grin:

Again Rob you are promoting hatchery fish because a good percentage of angler's aren't into C&R and don't bother to fish rivers that are closed to retention.

As long as the numbers are there and the runs are healthy, there is absolutely nothing wrong with harvesting a wild steelhead, chinook, sockeye, coho, chum or otherwise.

The rivers in NW Washington where harvest of wild steelhead have a very modest harvest I believe it is the same as SW Oregon where you are only allowed 1 a day/5 a year.

So you want your way (C&R) and some of us Burger Kinger's want it our way.
Problem is that you C&R folks already have it your way in the majority of rivers.

Show me where it is written that God says it is sinful to eat the wild "sacred" steelhead and I will change my opinion. :grin:

Dano

[Born to be Wild]

By the way Rob, Stew, Marty and others, do any of you have any information on what the mortality is on C&R steelhead?

No one can deny that there is a % of mortality even if it is low because I remember a thread that Jennie started a year ago on a dead wild steelhead that she attempted to revive released by another boat and ifish held a public funeral for the fish.

Dano

[boater]

dan, nice meeting you to and thanks again for the plug, also, alot of us up here are upset about this special interest group that will continue to kill fish and are organizing a protest, will e-mail you when all the details are worked out.

[boater]

dan, i called the WDFW yesterday and asked them what the mortality rate will be on the catch and release season on the skagit river and they said 5 percent, so 1 out of every 20 fish will be killed.

[Born to be Wild]

Fishing politic's are like any other politic's and not all of us will ever agree with each other.

My friend on Prince of Wales Island can keep (retain) and eat a wild steelhead but rarely does.
He has matured and is not the "fish killing" machine he used to be.
He would just soon let 'em go.

But, sometimes he hooks a wild steelhead that is bleeding or otherwise and doesn't feel it will make it.
He then keeps the steelhead.

A lot of folks might not realize that when you hook a salmonid in the tongue or eye for example, it is pretty much toast.

You have a "blanket approach" and are forced to throw back that wild steelhead that probably ain't going to make it.

I would be very dissapointed at releasing a "dead" wild steelhead or one that might be 20-30 pounds! :shocked:

And then you have those C&R guy's that hold the wild steelhead out-of-water to take a picture of it!

Dano

[ 02-14-2004, 08:23 PM: Message edited by: Born to be Wild ]

[rob allen]

On hooking mortality....

The province of B.C&gt; has done the most thurough evaluation of catch and release mortality their estimates are from 1-3% if catch and release of steelhead if done properly. According to B.C. catch and release has little or no effect on the health of a fishrey. or the health of individual fish that are caught. In the Vast majority of cases fish that were caught and released not only survived but suffered no adverse affects and spawned successfully just as though they were never caught.

Dan.. you know me better than to suggest I support hatcheries. What i am saying is that we already have so many hatchery fish that no one should ever have the need or desire to kill a wild fish. Killing a wild fish at this current time is nothing short of greedy.
frankly I don't care who gets screwed.. Whats important is that there are wild fish in the future PERIOD!!!! Thier future exsistence is more important than anyones ability to go fish for them. let alone harvest them.

Mr. Roehl's is wrong.. of thoes "healthy rivers" how many have had emergency closures the last few years??? Healthy rivers don't need meergency closures!
Again I site WDFW's historic wild steelhead managment as not only evidence but outright proof that they don't know what they are doing!!!

No one needs wild steelhead as food to survive.. anyone making that claim needs to go get a job or two.. God is very clear that the world belongs to Him and that we are to be stewards of everything He puts in our hands. We have done an extremely poor job managing what He has given us in that regard. We are like a child who has been given a wonderful toy who in a display of rebellion took a hammer and destroyed the toy in front of his parents.. We in this and many other issues have basically given God the finger..

[Ty]

Dano,

You can keep steelhead In SE Alaska only over 36", protecting 92% of the fish and here is ADFG justification of such.

ADFG Link:
http://www.sf.adfg.state.ak.us/state...pdfs/trout.pdf

If u leave the hook in the fish that is hooked deeply it has much greater chance of survival.

[Born to be Wild]

On hooking mortality....

The province of B.C&gt; has done the most thurough evaluation of catch and release mortality their estimates are from 1-3% if catch and release of steelhead if done properly.
According to B.C. catch and release has little or no effect on the health of a fishrey. or the health of individual fish that are caught.

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">

if done properly.

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">Neither does harvest if managed properly.

Dan.. you know me better than to suggest I support hatcheries. What i am saying is that we already have so many hatchery fish that no one should ever have the need or desire to kill a wild fish. Killing a wild fish at this current time is nothing short of greedy.
frankly I don't care who gets screwed.. Whats important is that there are wild fish in the future PERIOD!!!! Thier future exsistence is more important than anyones ability to go fish for them. let alone harvest them.

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">Rob, get a clue!
When you are saying that we don’t need wild steelhead harvest because we have a lot of hatchery fish is promoting hatcheries!
Plain and simple!

The best possible scenario is to have wild salmonid populations that support both C&R and harvest!

You preach wild C&R because there is so many hatchery fish.
That promotes hatchery fish because so many like myself don’t get interested in fishing wild fish when you can’t keep one every now and then.

Too other’s and me it is a total waste of time!

I have a friend that I practically adopted when he was a kid that would never like to see a consumptive harvest on wild steelhead in the Deep Creek basin (Siletz).

More power to him but I never fish Deep Creek because I am not interested in harassing wild fish for the fun of it.

So with your logic you might promote many hatchery salmonid’s so as to leave the other wild fish alone only to cause depressed wild stocks because of the many hatchery stocks that you can harvest?

And then when a hatchery like Beaver Creek on the Elocoman cannot get financing any longer and you haven’t built up the wild stocks because of the hatchery scenario, then what do you suggest?
You then have depressed wild stocks and a closed hatchery!

Unfortunately we have reached a time where there are too many fishermen and too much technology making it very efficient on catching fish and we have to reduce dailey and annual limits on fish whether it be salmonids or rockfish or trout or any other species except *********. :grin:

I appreciate your concern with wild fish Rob, but just don't think you are expressing the best interest in wild fish management.

As Scott Amerman said at the Sport's show; "we are all trying to achieve the same goals, but in different ways".

Well if we are all trying to achieve the same "goals" for long term fisheries, he is right.
But if we are trying to achieve the same depressed wild stocks at the expense of supplemental hatchery programs broodstock or otherwise that we have or are experiencing presently, that is not my goal.

I would imagine that habitat restoration is much cheaper and benificial in the long run.

Dano

[ 02-14-2004, 10:29 PM: Message edited by: Born to be Wild ]

[Born to be Wild]

Thanks Ty!

When are you, me and Rob going to get together and fish and discuss some of these issues?

I hear there is a "late" broodstock" run in the Kalama River.

I know I will have both of you "converted" by days end! :grin:

Dano

[rob allen]

Dan

harvest has never been managed properly in the state of Washington NOT ONCE.. WDFW has a history of being unwilling to limit the harvest of wild steelhead under any circumstances. It too years of lobbying with WDFW to have them consider wild steelhead release on the Washougal river wvwn when wild runs on that river were at all time lows and harvest was high.. The biggest opponent to WSr in the Washougal: The Association of Northwest Steelheaders... My point in this is that WDFW does everything it can to maintain as much harvest as possible up to the brink of extinction.. Thats what MSY does.. you take as many fish as you possibly can out of a system.. Maximum ststained yield.. Here is a clue wild steelhead shouldn't have any yield ever PERIOD!! None should ever be harvested by any one for any reason...

Frankly I don't care if people put their rods away because they can't kill fish.. thats their decision and their loss by their own choice..

This is the best secision WDFW has made in decades and if people hang up their rods because of it OH WELL!!! doing what is right is right even if it's unpopular.. and according to a recent poll I have seen this decision is very popular among steelhead fishermen...

WSR+ CnR = good sport fishing in the future

[Born to be Wild]

And that's your opinion Rob.

We all have opinions.

Dano

[The Steelheader]

If people hang up their rods and lose interest in fishing who will be there to have a voice? The more they shut down or limit the more frustrated people get and they quit altogether.

The future of angling is in its popularity, not its demise.

I support wild fish. They closed steelheading on my river because of 14 dead fish that washed up at the dam. 14 fish. Biggest run in 25 years and they found 14 supposedly caught fish that died from release. I've caught alot of steelhead this year, and out of all my fish, over 100, how many were hatchery? 5. The system is healthy, the fish are healthy, at least here.

[Born to be Wild]

Well I’m not going to spend any more time on this thread (I hope).

Some folks are under the impression that I just like to argue.
That is not true but I feel very strong about some of these issues and politics’ will always bring up arguments.

Perhaps if we had taken better management approaches earlier in the game we wouldn’t have a lot of these issues.
We have learned by our mistakes but some still choose to ignore modern science and trends.

Here is a look at some of the different management strategies for winter steelhead that I have observed in Oregon:

Salmon River and Drift Creek on the central Oregon coast.
Managed for wild fish only.
No harvest on wild steelhead.
No hatchery fish except for an occasional stray.
Angler’s are “threatened” with extinction on the Salmon River which has good numbers of wild steelhead and easy access but I suspect hardly anybody fishes it because you for the most part can’t keep a steelhead.
This is the scenario that you prefer Rob; no hatchery fish and no harvest on wild fish.

The Alsea River to the south.
Wild winter’s with no retention.
Hatchery brat’s that you can harvest.
Like many other rivers I suspect that the wild steelies are in pretty good shape but are not producing up to potential because of the negative effects of the hatchery influence.

This is the old status quo for many rivers and many fishermen are happy with it until their hatchery is threatened to close due to budget cuts.
For me it is a waste of wild fish because all they do is spawn and die, spawn and die, spawn and die.
Of course I do realize that a small portion of these steelhead are successful in migrating back to the ocean and completing their cycle again.
But to me it is a waste of a resource and the only fishermen that benefit are those that practice C&R.

Then to the north you have the Siletz River.
Again wild steelie’s with no retention.
Hatchery Brat’s Supreme (broodstock). :grin:
A great hatchery fish as far as aggressiveness, fight, size and return percentage.
But wild steelhead are still suppressed by these hatchery fish according to science however and there is a greater concern with this newest craze.

Science also shows these first year removed from the wild hatchery fish are genetically different than the wild fish from which the eggs came from.
Science also shows us that these broodstock fish however great they are do not spawn as successful in the wild as the wild fish.

The big concern is that broodstock fish have the later return and spawn timing of the wild steelhead and their chances of cross breeding has been greatly enhanced.
They will stray and crossbreed!

These are the fish (broodstock) that the guides and sporting goods stores want along with other fishermen.
I have reservations about creating a hatchery fish that could possibly screw-up the genetic characteristics of the remaining wild native steelhead.

Then to the south you have some rivers that are managed for wild steelhead where there is retention on the wild steelhead.
I don’t believe there is any hatchery steelhead in those rivers.

This is the perfect solution to managing salmonids I believe whenever possible.
In those particular rivers there is no issues of negative influence of hatchery steelhead on wild steelhead.

Man cannot duplicate nature!
Therefore I feel you are better off without hatchery fish whenever possible and should manage for wild fish which includes harvest for those that choose to do so.

I am not aware of any steelhead river where wild steelhead declines were caused by sport fishing.

I do have many reports however that concludes that hatchery fish caused wild steelhead declines.

I would think it would be obvious that gill netting and dams are a detriment to wild steelhead also.

Dano

[Commercialfisherman]

Maybe hammering commercial gillnetting is the obvious solution but with the correct management commercial fishing is not a detriment to the wild population. There other ways to manage for the wild population that benefits all.

[Abalone]

Wow ! are you really a Commercial fisherman ? Are you a Gillnetter ?

ON IFISH ? That would be so cool to get the other perspective.

Ok you aren't a Gillnetter so how do you feel about netting the CR ? are you a proponant or opponant ? Not trying to steer up anything here. I think it would be a very positive thing to have a Commercial Gillnetter on IFISH. Keeping it un-emotional if that where possible.

[ 02-15-2004, 02:10 PM: Message edited by: Abalone ]

[Commercialfisherman]

No, troller/longliner. Fish in Alaska but know a lot of people that used to fish the Washington coast before the whole king/coho fishing went downhill. Trollers dont catch any steelhead. Very rare so i dont know much about the gillnetting scene. Just like to stand up for commercial fishing rights since it seems like we are usually getting hammered by people trying to solve the neverending problem of fisheries managment. I realize we are one of the problems but with correct management (escapement) and quotas a compromise can be found

[Commercialfisherman]

I think netting the Columbia is fine as long as very few wild fish are being killed. It sounds like they dont get very long to fish it ( 8 hr openings or something like that) with very few openings so gillnetting the Columbia will probably become non existent in the yrs to come with farmed fish dominating the market and lower returns unless fish and game keeps pumping out hatchery fish like they have been and springers keep coming back in record numbers. But with changing ocean conditions it could go back to low returns like in previous years.

I just get irked when some magazine writers talk up how great the economic benefits sport fishing is too small town and they say commercial fishing should be limited or banned because it doesnt help the economy. I remember some guy named Dave Vedder (SSS magazine) writing an article on this. Obviously sport fishing is great to small coastal communities and makes or breaks the year because most of the profit comes in the summer. Kinda selfish to say that we should just outlaw commercial fishing because fishing families also depend on the sea.

Commercial fishing in the Columbia can work but you have to admit that there is a better way to do it than using gill nets. The kill of endangered species is far too much and the thought of allowing up a 7% bycatch kill is intolerable.
How about fish wheels or something that will allow retention of only the hathcery fish?

[Born to be Wild]

Hey Commercialfisherman, I pretty much agree with what you are saying and don't have a problem with commercial fishermen as a whole as long as management doesn't allow species to be overfished like for example what happened to the Oregon coastal wild coho, lingcod, canaries, yelloweye, etc.

You are probably aware that back in the hey days (70's & 80's) that commercial fishermen were catching upwards of 80% of the wild coho out in the ocean brought on by the big hatchery coho programs back then.

But I feel some commercial fisheries should be eliminated for example netting in the rivers and inshore bottom fish that should be left for the sport fishermen, in my opinion.

I don't have a problem with the saltwater troll of chinook because most of those stocks are healthy.

I have an interesting question for you.
Most of the commercial fishermen I know and other's that I have talked to at ODFW meetings have applauded the good news on the rebounding of OCN's and told me that they would not be interested in fishing them again even if they had the opportunity.

They don't pay (as compared to splitter's) and they would just be happy fishing the chinooks and letting the sports have the coho that are so valuable to them.

What's your honest opinion of letting the sports have the coho and stick to fishing chinook and other species?

Dan

[boater]

Originally posted by rob allen:
Here is a clue wild steelhead shouldn't have any yield ever PERIOD!! None should ever be harvested by any one for any reason...

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">harvest = a dead fish
incidental impact = a dead fish
catch and release mortality = a dead fish
incidental take = a dead fish

this rule clearly states that you cant keep a wild steelhead, it says nothing about not being able to kill them, if you dont want any killed, quit fishing.

[Commercialfisherman]

Born to be Wild,
With the impact farmed fish has had on the price of salmon, most commercial salmon fishing has gone down the tube so price will determine if the netting in the rivers continues. I dont know how those guys will survive unless they start selling directly to the public which was a lot of guys on the Oregon, Washington and CA coast have started doing. If i was trolling on the Washington, Oregon and CA coast i would want to fish coho. This is based on most of my fishing experience in Alaska. Right now trollers are getting paid dogfood prices for coho with kings a little better. Like in Washington, Alaska sets a quota on kings and last year we were able to fish for at least a month on the quota but in most yrs the quota has been caught in 3 to 8 days and the rest of the season is based on coho in Southeast. The Oregon trollers hammered the kings which wasnt good for price.
A lot of the kings we catch are bound for the Columbia.

A question i have for you: The Hanford Reach on the Columbia is one of the last free flowing stretches and has one of the largest spawning populations of Native King Salmon in the Columbia watershed. Obviously a lot of the smolts on their migration to the ocean are chopped up in the turbines. Does anybody know if there trying to improve the dam system so less smolts are chopped up? Because until the dam system on the Columbia and Snake R. is improved native salmon smolts will continue to die with it a large mortality on the native salmon stocks as it has always been. Releasing endagered salmon is a good thing but until the dams are taken out or the mortality is reduced, what is going to improve the populations??? Eventually ocean conditions will change and we'll be back to a yr when the overall chinook est. is only in the 30 to 40,000's with the bulk of the stock being hatchery.

[rob allen]

Dan... This statement by you sums it up perfectly....
"Perhaps if we had taken better management approaches earlier in the game we wouldn’t have a lot of these issues"

[ 02-15-2004, 07:13 PM: Message edited by: rob allen ]

[Ty]

Dano,

I agree with part of yoru posts, however be careful with your labels that hatchery fish are genetically different. Many of the differences are physilogical and induced by the hatchery evironment. Don't get mad either please...... but there is a great seal more need to be studies and proved before we can prove that hatchery fish a truelly less superior on a genetic lever. Many studies suggest that thing have more to do with the effects of juvenile rearing then the actual gentic make up of the two. It really depends if the two are genetically isloated from each other, what is the gene flow from outside populations, and if the hatchery componet is actually contributing to "wild" populations.... Regardless u are right the hatchery fish have a negative impact on wild fish for sure.....

I only point out to u teh Alsea stock is a bad example as is the Skamania stock too, because these fish have been planted all over the Oregon coast and have been very successful for many many years...... right or wrong.....

The streams on the South Coast that u speak of that are managed for "wild" fish with out hatchery brats planted there... produce regular limits of hatchery fish...... check the harvest records.... these fish may have even higher strating rates due to the added complexity of a "half pounder" life cycle...

[ 02-15-2004, 07:53 PM: Message edited by: Ty ]

[Born to be Wild]

Well Ty,

The data keeps rolling in and I will try to do the best I can at stating scientific facts.

Hatchery fish (domestic stock's) are very much inferior than wild stock's at spawning, surviving, disease resistance, etc.

Hatchery broodstock's are also inferior at spawning and surviving the wild.

Now I am not sure, but I don't think all these differences are physiological, but some are genetic due to selective breeding, selective "hatching of the eggs", etc.

Now what are you trying to say Ty, we humans can duplicate nature?
I don't think so!

Now you probably realize that buck dear and bull elk fight for they’re respective "breeding rights".
What makes you feel that there is a different characteristic going on (survival of the fittest) between buck and hen salmonid?
You cannot duplicate that in a hatchery environment Ty!

Then how many juvenile deer, fish, birds survive in the wild?
How many hatchery eggs survive in the hatchery?
Almost 100%!

Ty, I don't know where you are going to school (possibly Corvallis), but if you are learning the same "old" stuff that was taught by "old school" biologist, you have a lot to learn!
Hopefully the schooling is up to date with science.

It would be like going to an "old fashioned PHD" that just treats your ailments with subscriptions, antibiotic’s, etc. instead of getting to the root of the problem!

A lot of the bio's are listening to science and trying to "cure" the problems but other bio's are succumbing to political pressure!

Look at the overwhelming science!


Biology school teaches you a lot, but doesn’t teach you all or nearly all the solutions.


Dano

[ 02-16-2004, 09:32 AM: Message edited by: Born to be Wild ]

[Ty]

Caution Dano......

Jumpin to conclutions could make u look very silly.....

All the same triats u are calling inferior gentics can be induced by environmental factors that are exhibited in behavior, survivial, body shape, and other physiological and morphological features.

If u where wise u would not jump to conclutions that what I am trying to say is that you are wrong, when I am really agreeing with u. I am just suggesting that u use caution with blanket genetic statments that can't be supported. There are only suggestions in the literature that discuss inferiority. This may be, but at what level, and most importantly in science is PROVING IT! An example is the Red-Fish Lake sockeye, according to laws of the "founders effect" a population of less thatn 400 shoudl be inbred expressiong overwelming homozygozity.... however, much to the chigrin of the scientists that set out to prove this effect on salmonids, it has not been well documented. Red-Fish Lake Sockeye exibited a 98% heterozygozity suggesting no inbreeding and a very healthy genetic complement the the Sockeye species.

SO, define these inferior genetics.... Dispell the demons and let us all know what the exact differencees are and where the inferior alleles are and show us where the marker's are on these genes so professionals can confirm you opinion.....

An old addage from the science is that "without proof" you theory is just another opinion.

So why u put another dagger in my back and be little me to try to drag me to you level of inflamitory attacks on my schooling and expereince, you may just want to dig a little deeper into the literature and maybe just dust off the 'ol' basics of biology (evolution) that drives genetics.

Cause no one will argue that hatchery fish are less fit in the wild. I am not arguing that...
U take two genetically identical fish and indroduce them to two totally diffent environments, u will ahve two very very differnt fish that exhib differnt behavior, physiological and morphological characteristics that may serioulsy disable them to be able to survive and more inprotantly reproduce.

I certainly belive in the importance of higher education..... however there is no substitute for expereince and being able to make critical and most importantatly objective judgements pertaining to the basic biology of organisms....

So, while your opinions will just stay that opinions untill u find the data to back up your theory's. However, keep in mind that if u think that u can tell by looking at a animal and decide if u are seeing "physiological" or "genetic" differences then u are the true super hero biologist we all have been looking for?

[The Steelheader]

Ty says:

"....you may just want to dig a little deeper into the literature and maybe just dust off the 'ol' basics of biology (evolution) that drives genetics."


While you are talking about Born to be Wild's theories, let's not forget that your basics of biology, (evolution), is a theory too!

A good addage for all of us to understand...

Proverbs 12:15 "The way of a fool is right in his own eyes, But he who heeds counsel is wise."

Evolution is bunk, creation is truth. When people try to play God bad things happen. Let the Lord do His job.

[Born to be Wild]

Sorry Ty, you have my apology.

I'm not trying to put a dagger in your back either.
Just didn't appear that what you were learning was concurrent with modern science.
Of course a lot of these reports that I have read are new and just coming out within the last few months and I wouldn't suspect that biology classes have caught up with them yet.

But much of this info has been known for many years now and is only being confirmed by modern science.

Stew emailed me this morning and pointed to my attitude and he was right and I am thankful for his constructive critisism.

By the way, I did edit my reply a bit.

Continue on my friend.

Dano

[ 02-16-2004, 02:01 PM: Message edited by: Born to be Wild ]

[corkyking]

When you land a fish, the only clue that you have as to it's origin is the presence of an adipose fin.

So, for the sake of argument, let's say that of the tens of thousands of smolts that the hatcheries clip that a few hundred each year slip through the net, so to speak.

How many years do you think need to go by before there is no such thing as a "native" fish and any argument you may make is meaningless?

I believe that there is no such thing as a "native" fish of any kind in any west coast water. It is the illusion of the "native" fish that allows the bureaucrats to maintain the status quo. Without that illusion we would be demanding a much different management style.

[DanS]

I have invites to fish the Olympic Pennsula but am not even interested in going up there to release a wild steelhead.

I wouldn't be surprised if my friend in Depoe Bay cancels his anual trip up there this year also.

Makes absolutely no sense in a biological sense of management.

Well, what's next?

Get rid of the retention of wild coho on the Naeselle, Satsop, Chehalis and other rivers?

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">That's OK..........they're lining up to replace you. There won't be a shortage of anglers in Forks.

Wild coho release in the Satsop? Why not? It won't be long before they succumb to the pressure as well.

Statewide WSR may be a blanket approach that doesn't address each system specifically, but for once it DOES err on the side of the fish.........something that WDFW has always seemed to do the opposite of.

[Full Freezer]

Good Read.

Welcome CommercialFisherman! Thank you for your insight.

Lots of good opinion & info to digest. I am on the fence on this one. Personally, I prefer to eat salmon & would love to catch wild steelhead only to release them. If one could expect to fish a coastal river that had healthy populations of wild fish, then just CnR would be a blast.

I understand & accept the fact that many fishermen would WANT to keep & retain a wild steelhead. If the runs are healthy & predicted to remain that way, then I don't see a problem. But personally, I don't think I would kill one because I'd get a better kick out of releasing it knowing that it may spawn & return.

Just my .02

[Ty]

Caution Corky king...

Hatchery fish that succesfully produce offspring that survive are "wild" not "native"!

By definition "Native" is the stock that are indigenous to a particular stream, river, or geographic region.

So, u are right and wrong....... Yes, the definition of "wild" is sometimes is hard to justify because there is so many fish strayin in from other regions. However, these fish are far less likely to survive and those that so will have very similar survival tactics to the "native" stock.

U have a good point in that many particular stocks have been munipulated throughout different geographic regions.

However, examples such as the Toutle River which rebuilt it's own "wild" run of steelhead would not be consided "nntive" but should be protected and treated as such.

[ 02-16-2004, 11:58 AM: Message edited by: Ty ]

[Born to be Wild]

When you land a fish, the only clue that you have as to it's origin is the presence of an adipose fin.

So, for the sake of argument, let's say that of the tens of thousands of smolts that the hatcheries clip that a few hundred each year slip through the net, so to speak.

How many years do you think need to go by before there is no such thing as a "native" fish and any argument you may make is meaningless?

I believe that there is no such thing as a "native" fish of any kind in any west coast water. It is the illusion of the "native" fish that allows the bureaucrats to maintain the status quo. Without that illusion we would be demanding a much different management style.

Funny when someone challenges the notion of a "native" fish how many people start calling them "wild" in order to keep the conversation on the same track.

I propose the same argument be it "wild" or "native". The fisheries biologist not to mention the fisherman standing on the bank cannot tell the difference without the fin being clipped.

All the hand wringing and endless debate is meaningless. A wild fish is one that has made it out to the ocean and after fighting for its life for a few years comes back to the river to spawn. The fact that we capture them and force spawning only helps the numbers. If they came back and there were no hatcheries it wouldn't mean a thing to them. I call to your attention those fish that are transplanted into streams that have no hatcheries and yet produce "natives" or "wild" fish every year. They come from hatchery fish which have survived to spawn as well as the possibility that a "native" might be there somewhere.

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">Corkyking, seems we have been through this before.

As Ty pointed out and I have several times in the past year that I have been an ifish member,
there are native fish and these fish are wild, and there are wild fish that aren’t native.

Most rivers that have both native wild fish and domesticated hatchery fish whether it be steelhead or coho are separated by run and spawn timing therefore there is very little cross breeding going on.

Hatchery fish are pretty much toast by the time the later wild or native fish spawn.

Hatchery fish normally are not overly successful in spawning and when they are successful their progeny does very poorly at surviving the wild.
When a successful wild hatchery fish progeny does manage to make the return trip it has the earlier run timing of the hatchery fish, not the later run timing of the nate’s.

Now if you had read the report that I posted the abstract last fall and the entire report (less the graphs) a week ago you would realize that some of your statements are off base.

Here you are, Salmonid Science at it's best!


Here are some quotes from the new report (last fall) by Kathryn Kostow:


“Genetic results provided evidence that interbreeding between hatchery summer and wild winter steelhead was likely minor. Hatchery summer steelhead reproductive success was relatively poor”.

“The third population, unmarked
winter steelhead returning to the Clackamas River,
was assumed to represent the wild native gene
pool”.

“The hatchery summer stock predominated
among the parents in both brood years of our study,
based on numbers passing above the dam, but they
produced half or less of the smolts and only a small
proportion of the naturally produced adult offspring.
The relatively poor reproductive success
of summer steelhead is evident in the number of
smolts and adult offspring produced per parent by
the two brood years (Table 4)”.

“Baseline allele frequency data for the three
Clackamas steelhead stocks demonstrated that
adults classified phenotypically as wild winter
steelhead were genetically divergent from both introduced
summer and winter hatchery stocks.Wild
winter steelhead genetic differentiation indicated
that this population has not been homogenized by
interbreeding with hatchery stocks. These data
support the hypothesis that among-stock reproductive
isolation is relatively high”.

“Genetic data for smolts provided evidence that
the samples contained fish from separate source
populations. Heterozygote deficiencies and significant
gametic disequilibria in the 1995 smolt sample
indicated that it contained individuals from genetically
divergent populations. Although we
found no significant HW disequilibria in the 1996
sample, significant gametic disequilibria results indicated
that individuals originated from separate,
divergent sources”.

“This successful allocation of most smolts to a
single parent source by mixed-stock MLE analysis
gave us confidence that interbreeding among winter
and summer steelhead was at very low levels”.

“Hatchery summer steelhead were able to produce
smolt offspring, but they did so with much
less success than wild winter steelhead. In the 2
years of this study hatchery summer steelhead produced
about a third or less as many smolts per
parent and about a tenth or less as many adult
offspring per parent as wild winter steelhead did”.

” Theoretical work by Lynch and O’Hely (2001) predicted
that hatchery stocks like the nonnative,
mixed-origin South Santiam Hatchery summer
stock, which has been in artificial production for
many generations, should have substantially depressed
fitness in a stream environment compared
with the local wild population. Our results are consistent
with Chilcote et al. (1986) and Leider et al.
(1990; but see also Campton et al. 1991), who
demonstrated poor reproductive success in Kalama
River, Washington, of Skamania Hatchery summer
steelhead, the progenitor of the South Santiam
stock”.

“We conclude that even though naturally spawning
hatchery steelhead may experience poor reproductive
success, they and their juvenile progeny
may be abundant enough to occupy substantial
portions of spawning and rearing habitat to the
detriment of wild fish populations. The capacity
of the Clackamas basin to produce steelhead
smolts is expected to be finite (Allen 1969). Therefore,
the large numbers of introduced summer
steelhead would have competed heavily with wild
winter steelhead for habitat resources, and this
may have contributed to their decline”.

“In the Clackamas basin, smolt offspring of
hatchery fish appear to have wasted the production
from natural habitat because very few survived to
return as adults”.

“However,
second-generation production failure also could be
a potential risk for hatchery supplementation programs
that seek to produce adult returns from naturally
spawning hatchery fish and thereby boost
wild population size. We caution managers about
concluding that natural spawning and smolt production
by hatchery fish is evidence for the success
of supplementation programs. Evidence for success
must also include returning adult offspring
and no depression of wild fish productivity. Potential
competition between hatchery and wild fish
for habitat is pertinent to supplementation programs
where natural reproductive success by
hatchery fish is the major goal. Supplementation
programs should be attuned to basin carrying capacities
so that they do not reduce wild fish productivity
through competition for resources”.

So CorkyKing, as the report stated you cannot prove that these Clack wild winter’s are 100% native and have not had any homogenization (I think they called it) because there is no DNA available from wild Clack winter’s prior to the hatchery programs there.

But, it is obvious that the Clack nate’s are different than both the hatchery summer’s and winter’s and far superior.
Most angler’s will tell you that without the added science.

Dano

[Ty]

Holy Crap Born to Be Wild!!!

We finally agree on something... Nice reply, and well said.

A fish is not wild untill it has succesfully produced ofspring that are succesful at survival and so on and so on....

[superfly]

I can't believe that any of you actually want to kill the wild fish, what is wrong with you. The wild fish continue to decline because of Indian nets and overfishing and yet you guys think a mandatory wild fish release is stupid?
Wake up man, it ain't the 70's anymore !!!!!
Peace
Superfly

[Uglygreen]

Just a reminder Dan - your "new" study was done from 1995 to 1997 - and the strains of hatchery fish it refers to were discontinued in 1999. Also, the Clackamas study Dan refers to is just a snapshot in time with a small sample size of only about 75 fish.

Now for the REST OF THE STORY - that paper that Dan posted is what ODFW used to support the Clackamas hatchery conservation broodstock program(s) we have today.

The study Dan refers to doesnt support the elimination of all hatchery supplimentation like some would have you believe. All the conclusions they reached in that study are being followed with the conservation broodstock supplimentation program that has been in place since 1999. For example: the Clackamas study supports protecting wild fish spawning and rearing habitat from hatchery fish, which is being done now on the Clackamas with 80% of the habitat unavalible to any hatchery fish. The study supports removing the domesticated hatchery strain of fish, which was done 5 years ago in favor of conservation broodstock strains of fish being used now. Since 1999 the following is true:

1) They no longer allow hatchery fish (summers or winters) above North Fork Dam. Everything above North Fork dam (80% of the habitat) is now a wild fish only spawning and rearing habitat sanctuary.

2) The former Big Creek winter stock (the study Dan refers to) is gone and has been changed to 2 different Clackamas river conservation broodstock strains.

3) The steelhead program on the Clackamas river is now modeled on the Hood River conservation broodstock program study, which you can read by clicking the following link.


READ THIS LINK

CONCLUSIONS FROM LINKED HR STUDY

1. Fish from old hatchery stock consistently have very low fitness (usually less than 50% that of wild fish) when breeding in the wild. The fact that H(old stock) x W crosses consistently produce fewer offspring than W x W crosses (Table 4) suggests that having H(old stock) breeders in a system might lower the fitness of the wild population. Whether the surviving wildborn offspring of such crosses re-establish “wild” levels of fitness after one full generation of selection in nature remains to be tested.

2. 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 H(new stock) x W and W x W pairs, suggests that having H(new stock) 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.

3. The surprisingly large number of missing parents, and the fact that most missing parents are fathers (Fig. 3), suggests that precocious parr or resident trout are obtaining matings that produce anadromous offspring. Alternate explanations for offspring that lack both parents include a large number of unclipped hatchery fish or wild strays entering the system.

The Hoodriver study is ongoing until at least 2010 to see how successive generations of conservation broodstock fish fare. Keep in mind that they have the DNA on record for every single adult fish passed over the dam since 1991. They know who the parents were for each and every returning adult steelhead. Rumor is that the data over the last couple years that hasnt been published yet is as good or better than the results published in the first Hood River report.

UG

[ 02-16-2004, 07:29 PM: Message edited by: Uglygreen ]

[corkyking]

Superfly says:
“I can't believe that any of you actually want to kill the wild fish, what is wrong with you.”

I don’t think anyone is advocating the killing of “wild” steelhead, at least I haven’t seen it in the post.

This is one of my statements:
“I propose the same argument be it "wild" or "native". The fisheries biologist not to mention the fisherman standing on the bank cannot tell the difference without the fin being clipped.”

From the text provided by BTBeWild:
“We collected out-migrating smolts, identified as naturally produced based on lack of adipose fin clip marks”

This is my main premise:
“It is the illusion of the "native" fish that allows the bureaucrats to maintain the status quo. Without that illusion we would be demanding a much different management style.”

Let me quote the study that you produced to bolster my argument (BTW BTBeWild, thank you for going to the trouble):

“We conclude that even though naturally spawning hatchery steelhead may experience poor reproductive success, they and their juvenile progeny may be abundant enough to occupy substantial portions of spawning and rearing habitat to the detriment of wild fish populations.”
“However, it was apparent from both models that hatchery summer steelhead contributed at relatively high levels to natural production of smolts in both years.”

Ty stated that:
“A fish is not wild untill it has succesfully produced ofspring that are succesful at survival and so on and so on....”

Again from the study provided:
“In the 2 years of our study, summer steelhead adults, mostly hatchery fish, made up 60% to 82% of the natural spawners in the river.” Sounds as though they “succesfully produced ofspring” to me.

Uglygreen (thanks to you also.) provides the following which further makes my point:
“Fish from new, conservation hatchery stock have fitness that is about equal to that of wild fish” – “Thus, the conservation hatchery program appears to have added a demographic boost to the population without having obvious negative genetic consequences”

Let me state my premise again:
All this hand wringing and finger pointing at fellow sportsmen plays into the hands of the forces on the other side. If we accepted as fact that there is little if any difference between these fish then we could get on with enlightened management. The kind of management that is so successful in other regions.

[Born to be Wild]

Now for the REST OF THE STORY - that paper that Dan posted is what ODFW used to support the Clackamas hatchery conservation broodstock program(s) we have today.

All the conclusions they reached in that study are being followed with the conservation broodstock supplimentation program that has been in place since 1999.

The study supports removing the domesticated hatchery strain of fish, which was done 5 years ago in favor of conservation broodstock strains of fish being used now. Since 1999 the following is true:

2) The former Big Creek winter stock (the study Dan refers to) is gone and has been changed to 2 different Clackamas river conservation broodstock strains.

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">One problem with these statements you made Brad.
The Clackamas hatchery steelhead programs you mentioned are not “conservation broodstock” as you stated, but rather “supplementation broodstock”.
Conservation broodstock programs are very intense and expensive and used to restore wild fish.
The Clackamas, Siletz, and Nestucca rivers have plenty wild winter steelhead as to where they don’t need the very expensive “conservation broodstock” programs.
Those rivers have hatchery “supplementation programs to put in fish to catch.
Comparing the Hood River “conservation” program to the Clackamas, Siletz, and Nestucca “supplementation programs” is like comparing apples and oranges.

We would be better off removing the dam on the hood river and letting the wild steelhead recover themselves and that they would.
The report you posted the link states that the dam is only being left for the purpose of the study.
Makes a lot of sense to me.
Then we could use the multi million dollars wasted on the Hood River conservation program to buy out a bunch of gill-netters!

Since you are much more savvy than me at locating sources on the net, why don’t you look up the cost of the Hood River conservation program and post it here for us to read.
I think we all would find it interesting!

Also regarding the Clackamas, just think how many more wild steelhead and wild coho we would have if we were to practice that same management of the upper river in the lower river!

When I used to fish the Clack 10 years ago or so, there was a trib near Barton I believe was called Deep Creek, below it right near the Carver boat ramp there was another trib (can’t recall the name) and up towards Estacada there is Eagle Creek.

All of them are producing wild fish and all of them would be capable of producing a lot more wild fish if they weren’t over burdened with the massive hatchery programs on the Clackamas system.

There might be even more wild producing trib’s on the lower Clack that I’m not aware of or have over looked, but just think of the potential of wild fish that the Clack could once again produce.

Dan

[Born to be Wild]

I can't believe that any of you actually want to kill the wild fish, what is wrong with you. The wild fish continue to decline because of Indian nets and overfishing and yet you guys think a mandatory wild fish release is stupid?
Wake up man, it ain't the 70's anymore !!!!!
Peace
Superfly

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">Fly, that is the blanket approach and if we used it on all other species there would be many fisheries closed in the NW.

“The wild fish continue to decline” is a generalized statement and is not true.
Some wild fish stocks are healthy and not declining.
You also over looked the fact that hatchery fish are part of the declines in some of these wild stocks that are declining and not over harvest.

From the text provided by BTBeWild:
“We collected out-migrating smolts, identified as naturally produced based on lack of adipose fin clip marks”

This is my main premise:
“It is the illusion of the "native" fish that allows the bureaucrats to maintain the status quo. Without that illusion we would be demanding a much different management style.”

Again from the study provided:
“In the 2 years of our study, summer steelhead adults, mostly hatchery fish, made up 60% to 82% of the natural spawners in the river.” Sounds as though they “succesfully produced ofspring” to me.

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">CorkyKing, I believe you are misunderstanding the statement and intent.
Yes they identified the wild smolts to be tested by lack of adipose fin clips for DNA testing.
There would be no point in wasting the money for DNA testing on obvious hatchery smolts that were fin clipped.
The purpose of this study was to identify the “naturally produced” smolts through DNA to see who was spawning up river and I guess to see who was sleeping with who! :grin:

And yes; “Sounds as though they “succesfully produced ofspring” to me.
You are 100% correct!
Took everybody by surprise because normally hatchery fish aren’t as successful at spawning in the wild as they were in the Clack.
And that was the key to what was creating the problems with the “native” Clackamas winter steelhead as you see in the report.
You probably also noticed that even though the hatchery summers were more successful at spawning than anyone had imagined, their progeny had very poor success at surviving in the wild.
A no win situation unless you just like to catch those expensive summer’s and kiss goodbye to those relatively free wild winter’s.

Uglygreen (thanks to you also.) provides the following which further makes my point:
“Fish from new, conservation hatchery stock have fitness that is about equal to that of wild fish” – “Thus, the conservation hatchery program appears to have added a demographic boost to the population without having obvious negative genetic consequences”

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">Well I think I already answered this one above but will point out again; this doesn’t pertain to the Clackamas broodstock program and is a huge waste of money being spent on the Hood River, in my opinion anyway.
Removing the dam and letting nature recover itself could better accomplish what this very expensive program is accomplishing.

Well it’s late and I won’t be able to come out and play much more for awhile because I don’t get paid for this and I got to go make some money.
It’s been fun. :smile:

Dano

[ 02-16-2004, 11:33 PM: Message edited by: Born to be Wild ]

[Uglygreen]

Dan - you are way wrong. What is the "supplimentation broodstock" anyway? Is that a real term? I think your confusing "conservation broodstock" which is a descriptive term to identify hatchery programs which use in basin wild fish strains for hatchery eggs (EG Hood River, Clackamas, Wilson, Siletz, Nestucca, Etc...) and supplimentation programs which describs the goals of most any hatchery program whether it uses an established hatchery strain of fish (eg Big Creek, Alsea, etc..) or a conservation broodstock strain of fish. All hatchery programs (including Hood River) are supplimentation programs, not all use conservation broodstock strains of fish (yet).

The Clackamas programs were changed from the Big creek (Winter stock 13 - same as Hood River) hatchery stock to the Clackamas conservation broodstock strain (Winter stock 64 if I remember correctly). Same concept as Hood River, but using wild Clackamas fish. The change was made in 1999. At the same time the Sakmania (summer stock 24 - same as Hood River) was discontinued above North Fork dam. Once again the same concept as Hood River - and based on the study you posted, keeping the summer run smolts from displacing the wild winter smolts in the habitat. You want to argue this? Maybe a big conspiracy by ODFW to fool us all? Sorry, but its fact - it really happened. Only difference with the coastal programs is they use acclimation pond facilities to keep the hatchery fish out of the wild fish spawning areas rather than a physical barrier such as a dam.

Why do you insist that Hood River is some massive expense? The hatchery program there doesnt cost anymore than anywhere else.

The DNA study is a seperate thing funded by BPA which has nothing to do with the cost of the hatchery program itself. Why would it be a waste of money to find out a better way to do hatchery programs without harming wild fish stocks? I know your mind is already made up, but for a lot of the rest of us the conservation broodstock programs hold a lot of promise and finding out if they work as advertised is well worth the cost. Im keeping an open mind - why cant you?

UG

[ 02-17-2004, 12:12 AM: Message edited by: Uglygreen ]

[corkyking]

Funny when someone challenges the notion of a "native" fish how many people start calling them "wild" in order to keep the conversation on the same track.

I propose the same argument be it "wild" or "native". The fisheries biologist not to mention the fisherman standing on the bank cannot tell the difference without the fin being clipped.

All the hand wringing and endless debate is meaningless. A wild fish is one that has made it out to the ocean and after fighting for its life for a few years comes back to the river to spawn. The fact that we capture them and force spawning only helps the numbers. If they came back and there were no hatcheries it wouldn't mean a thing to them. I call to your attention those fish that are transplanted into streams that have no hatcheries and yet produce "natives" or "wild" fish every year. They come from hatchery fish which have survived to spawn as well as the possibility that a "native" might be there somewhere.