question for all the anti hatchery people

[Quasimodo the fish killer]

is it possible that the in the hey day of hatchery enhancment of streams that the reason the wild fish numbers declined is because there were so many fish in the rivers that no one cared about or did stream bed enhancment?

it is easy to say hatchery fish hurt our wild runs
but nothing was done back then to help the runs survive at all. back before the panic of our declining wild stocks no one did enhancment they just dumped more hatchery fish. we shouldnt forget that hatcheries were created because the runs were failing. they built hatcheries to supliment the runs decimated by loging practices and over fishing instead of repairing the damage done to the river systems.


I was just thinking that since the wild fish decline was brought into the spot light stream bed enhancment has exploded and that has a lot to do with the increase of many runs of wild fish.

is it possible that the hatchery fish being dumped into the rivers isnt as bad as you all think and it is more the lack of spawning habitat caused by forestry practices and over fishing that caused the decline?

we now have an explosion of stream enhancment and new laws on how logging can effect the rivers. none of which was done before the crash of our wild stocks. the runs on the rivers that have had extensive habitat restoration are rebounding at astonishing rates.

maybe the decline of wild stocks was something that was going to happen even if hatchery fish had not been introduced into the rivers and it isnt the hatchery fish competing for food or breeding with the wild strains at all.

the reason why I asked those questions is because I was thinking back to some articles that I read about how huge the runs once were. I know that our wild runs are just a small percentage of what they were 200 years ago and if that is the case why would the hatchery smolts competing for food be a problem? seems like 200 years ago there was a greater number of smolts in the river then there is now even with the hatchery smolts added.

common sense tells me that if a river originally supported 2 million smolts then it should be able to support 2 million smolts even if half of them are hatchery smolts.

I know I am all over the place with this post and I dont know if I am getting across what I really want to say but it just seems that you guys on the anti hatchery band wagon should concentrating on enacting laws to repair the rivers so they can support the great numbers of smolts that they once did instead of crying close all hatcheries.

I do not think hatcheries are the fix all for our rivers but I do not believe they are the beast that you guys make them out to be. please bear in mind that they studies that you guys post and rely on were done back when no enhancment was done at all so they are flawed science.

Quasi

.

[boater]

Originally posted by Quasimodo the fish killer:

it is easy to say hatchery fish hurt our wild runs

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">if hatchery fish dont harm wild fish, why is all THIS being done ??

[AuntyM]

Big breath.... Here we go!

My non scientific opinion: Politics of commercial fishing. I suspect that there were bio's that knew hatcheries weren't getting enough scrutiny decades ago. Some were in denial. Some were kept quiet and some spoke out.

I think most bio's have always known wild fish wouldn't be sustainable for commercial harvest. I think that's why many have chosen to ignore the hatchery threat for decades, and kept dumping smolts.

Who has the political clout with fisheries? Commercials. Who thinks wild fish are a nuisance to them? Commercials. Who stands to gain the most if we stop trying to save wild fish? Commercials.

I love conspiracy theories. :grin:

[drano100]

I think there are many reasons for the decline of wild fish that have nothing to do with hatchery fish. Timber pratices, over fishing, driff nets, loss of habitat,irrigation demands, and dams to name a few. A river that could support 2 million smolt 200 years ago is not the same river today. At the rate that fish were being caught by commercial fishermen in the 1920's- 60's and the changes that were taking place to the river here was no way that the wild fish were going to make it. The wild fish run will never be what it once was even if we removed all hatchery's too much has changed. :depressed:

[Ty]

Quasimoto....

The enhancement projects las of late.... are a tiny friaction of what needs to be done to even stop the current destruction as we speak.... These fish require high water quality that is dependent on the entire watersheds health..... not just spawining habitat... I see very little large woody debris is streams tdy adn do not see the proper agricultural practices being utilized on cureent coastal streams...

Biologists have learned that the more hatchery fish u plant the greater the negative impact they WILL have on wild fish.

Auny M..... everyone is to blame for the demise of fisheries in the NW... Finger pointing and laying blame on one group or another shows the true ignorance of the general public to what the real issues in fisheries management are and just goes to show u that very few people have a understanding of the sacrifices that we ALL would ahve to make to bring back salmonids to previous historic levels.....

[img]graemlins/icon_argue.gif[/img]

[Born to be Wild]

Quasi,

You’re on the wrong track but have some good questions.
Lack of habitat restoration and over fishing by commercial fishermen were bad side effects of the large hatchery years.
Millions of hatchery fish for example OPI years in the 70’s reaching 4 million and just beyond gave a false feeling of the health of the OCN’s for example and they were over fished with the research showing an average of 80% on some years.
One of many examples I could give you that Aunty M eluded too (commercial fishing).

Habitat wasn’t given a priority again because we had so many of those blessed hatchery fish.

But during those big massive fire-up-the-hatchery years of the 70’s and 80’s is when a lot of the wild stocks started taking a radical dump.
Of course during those years we had the normal “peaks and valleys”, but they were spiraling on a downhill trend and bio’s couldn’t figure out why.

Well after awhile the bio’s started noticing trends where you had the big hatchery programs, you had declining wild fish.
Guys like Bill Bakke (Native Fish Society) started attempting to inform folks about this disturbing news back in the 80’s but mostly fell on deaf ears (as it still does today to a lesser degree).
20 year later science has caught up with hatchery fish and it is undisputable that hatchery fish suppress wild runs and are blamed for many wild stock declines.

You have to keep in mind Quasi that the wild fish were still hanging in there even during the worst logging practices i.e. splash damming, etc. and forest fires.
It was when the big brother hatchery plan got fired up and were successful at growing big successful smolts with the new feed that was formulated in the late 60’s/early 70’s that the wild fish stocks went to hell.

And then you have the rivers with the big hydro electric dams and you have a different scenario and mix that with negative hatchery fish and you have a much worse scenario (regarding wild fish) and then throw in the gill nets and you have a disaster!

So you see Quasi you can try and find a way around the negative influence of hatchery fish but you simply can’t.
Some of the newer reports on negative influence of hatchery fish are done in different habitats ranging from poor to good and it doesn’t matter, the wild fish suffer the consequences of the hatchery fish no matter the habitat.
In fact I think I read one where the wild fish in the poor habitat did better than the the wild fish in the good habitat that had hatchery fish in their basin.

I talked with Mark Chilcote on the phone yesterday and verified that in his published report using steelhead in 12 separate basins that some or most of them were hatchery broodstock type fish which included the normal “wild” hatchery broodstock fish that we have on the Wilson, Nestucca and Siletz.
The results were the same and even the “wild” hatchery broodstock fish suppress the wild steelhead runs and there is some unknown mechanism in them that make them “unalike” wild fish and perform similar to the domesticated stocks (spawning/survival) in the wild and therefore “unfit” for wild fish replacement.

Mark is a scientist and not an ODFW fish manager.
He just puts all the scientific data together, analyzes it and puts out the reports.

One comment Mark made to me yesterday was if I had asked him 6 or 7 years ago, he would have probably told me it was genetics but now he thinks it is some other mechanism and referred to a report that Nicholson did on coho I believe it was pinpointing another theory why they are different.

So there you have it, 20 years or so of overwhelming science coming in showing some very negative aspects of hatchery fish and the more science evolves the worse case you have against hatchery fish.

By the way you refer to some of us as anti-hatchery.
I’ll speak for myself but as I have said previously; I’m not anti-hatchery, just anti-hatchery where we don’t need them or they don’t belong.

The latest science and common sense tells us that a broodstock program on the Nestucca will negatively affect the wild steelhead there in at least loss wild production.
Why did we do it?

Dano

PS&gt; We will never see overall pre-settlement numbers of wild salmon in the northwest ever again unless you vacate the NW and turned it into one big park. (Don't forget to remove all the dams and urbanization before you leave).

The Siusalw is believed to be at historical numbers of Chinook!
And yes, there is work yet to be done regarding habitat restoration.

[Born to be Wild]

Who has the political clout with fisheries? Commercials. Who thinks wild fish are a nuisance to them? Commercials. Who stands to gain the most if we stop trying to save wild fish? Commercials.

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">I think there is a lot of truth to what you said Aunty M in the State of Washington.

Dano

[onebadfish]

quasi,
great points. a lot of people don't like to hear this stuff though. although our countermeasures to pollution and overfishing are far from perfect; at least they are in place and seem to be having some success. it's easy to second guess hatchery/anti hatchery philosophy; but in truth much harder to put into play effective solutions. thanks again quasi.

[Born to be Wild]

we shouldnt forget that hatcheries were created because the runs were failing. they built hatcheries to supliment the runs decimated by loging practices and over fishing instead of repairing the damage done to the river systems.

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">Also Quasi I believe this fish mitigation took place on the account of dams and/or commercial fishermen, not habitat loss but I am not sure on that one.

When you start talking about astonishing rates (referring to wild fish?), I think you will find a more common trend in hatchery fish reductions and elimination than you will find trends in extensive habitat restoration.

But don't worry yourself to death on this because the bio's and scientist all over the planet are already 2 steps ahead of you and it is all considered in those hatchery/wild reports we have been posting.

I personally feel there is much bigger problems with hatchery fish in some areas than there is with habitat.
Habitat is a very difficult, expensive problem to correct and needs to be done but hatchery influence problems is an inexpensive one and in fact saves you money because all you have to do is stop growing those expensive hatchery fish where they are a problem.

Dano

[ 03-06-2004, 02:09 PM: Message edited by: Born to be Wild ]

[Jimmy Carl Black]

common sense tells me that if a river originally supported 2 million smolts then it should be able to support 2 million smolts even if half of them are hatchery smolts.

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">If we restored some of the natural disturbance and flow regimes to the salmon's environment we would have room for all of those smolts. But by then we wouldn't need hatchies.
I think its the dams. They are the single factor responsible for the massive disturbances of the salmon's habitat. Changing water levels exposing redds, slack water pools 80 miles long filled with hungry bass, walleye, etc., eliminating the possibility of side channel and backwater habitat. Our original June hog run disappeared literally overnight with Grand Coulee. Good thing some of the more useless ones are coming out.
As for the undamned rivers with declining runs, I say dump a bunch of wood in and decommission the unused roads.

Pro-dam people: I don't think that having a few of the mega dams for sources of power was such a terrible idea. I think building 19 was.

[Quasimodo the fish killer]

thank you Ty that was exactly what I was getting at. the overall health of the water sheds are poor so they may not have the feed, shade, spawning beds to sustain the fish runs. the negative impact hatchery fish have on the wild stocks could simply be because they system can not support that number of fish.

born to be wild stated on another thread that the suislaw was experiencing historical high runs of coho and chinook that is most likely correct I have not talked to the bio since he posted so I am not sure. one thing I do know is that there has been enhancment on the siuslaw river for 20 years or better. Knowels creek was one of, if not the first creek they started placing root balls and logs into the river to test theroys, and now the enhancment program on most rivers is modeled after the knowelage that was gained from knowels creek. they then continued on to the upper streches of the siuslaw river and its tributaries. then they worked on siltcoos and takanitch(sp?). all of those watersheds are having historical returns, and in every one of those water sheds extensive work was done to repair the over all health of the river.

so it is possible that the only reason hatchery fish have a negative impact on wild fish is because the water shed health is so poor that it can not support that many fish.

I think you all can see what I am getting at here. the wild fish runs had collapsed long before hatchery fish were introduced into the rivers that is why they created hatcheries.

they dumped hordes of smolts and everyone was happy but they did nothing to fix what caused the runs to collapse to begain with. everything was hunky dory untill the late 80s early 90s when the state funds begain to dry up and hatcheries started closing left and right. when the number of hatchery smolts was cut people noticed the dismal numbers of wild fish. the wild fish populations have been dropping since way before hatchery fish were introduced into any of the rivers.

could it be that the wild fish populations would have continued to plumet even if they would have never created a hatchery system, because of the poor health of the water sheds?

I think the anti hatchery people have tunnel vision and hatcheries are an easy target. I know there are declines in fish populations of rivers that have never had hatchery fish dumped into them so you cant blame the wild fish problems on hatcheries.

I believe that it is possible that wild fish and hatchery fish could coexist if the watershed is healthy with a very minimal if not unnoticable negative impact to the wild fish. I do not think the recovery of our wild stocks of fish depends on the removal of all hatchery fish; I think it depends on creating healthy watersheds.

Quasi

.

[AuntyM]

JCB,

Dams do not explain the declines and listing of some of the Hood Canal Rivers. Only one has a dam and less than average habitat. The rest are better than average to very good for habitat. Some say it was logging but that can't be it for those closest to Olympic National Park.

I'm convinced it was overharvest first, followed by too many hatchery plants to compensate, followed by too many predators. The seal population was enormous.

[Quasimodo the fish killer]

the dams on rivers are deffinately a hinderence to the fish but I would think that even with the dams if they would flow each river like a mnormal river then that would help to improve smolt survival during migration.

for example fill the dams during winter or super high spring run off and after that flow out exactly what is coming into each pool. create natural flows in the rivers below the dams. I am not sure the draw downs they do to push smolts down river during migration is a smart thing to do. on many systems they create higher flows then the river would have if the dams werent in place and that could have a negative impact on the smolts. I am not sure if any studies have been done on it or not, but it seems to me that creating flows that are more like natural flows would be better for the smolts plus they wouldnt lose as much generated power.

Quasi

.

[Jimmy Carl Black]

Well we'll have to see how the new bypass structure at Bonny does. Some tribal efforts have focues on exactly what you are talking about. But as we have noted before, our friends in the BPA don't really seem to care about the fish or anything those whom they work for (I think that's supposed to be US) think.

[SHLEPROCK]

I can't help but think that logging played a major part in the wild fish population. On some of the smaller tribs that had thier watersheds clearcutted years ago some of them almost dried up in the summer months. If a stream that supported wild fish became unusable would that run of fish die off?
I know that after they logged the Big Creek watershed they had to divert all the flow through the hatchery for thier needs in the summer and I am sure there was no way for adult fish to bypass.
Back in the 60s I hooked several salmon above the hatchery during the trout opener.
So what happens to wild fish in that case?

[onebadfish]

quasi,
that was a good point about the studies quoted being outdated. studies have proven that studies tend to be subjective, thus not really lending themselves to practical application.
auntiM,
that also was an excellent point about hood canal rivers seeing a decline also, even though they did not suffer from dam restrictions. however, i was under the impression that there were exponentialy more sealions previous to the overfishing era. i'll bet someone can produce a study either way on that.
i am really looking forward to catching some hatchery springers.

[Ty]

Dano...

The results were the same and even the “wild” hatchery broodstock fish suppress the wild steelhead runs and there is some unknown mechanism in them that make them “unalike” wild fish and perform similar to the domesticated stocks (spawning/survival) in the wild and therefore “unfit” for wild fish replacement

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">So now u seem to get my point about genetics through Chilcote.... Amazing...I am speakless in shear amazement that u might actually be starting to "get it."

[ 03-06-2004, 08:20 PM: Message edited by: crabbait ]

[Born to be Wild]

born to be wild stated on another thread that the suislaw was experiencing historical high runs of coho and chinook that is most likely correct I have not talked to the bio since he posted so I am not sure.

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">No, no, no, no Quasi.
Be carefull what you say!
I never ever said that coho anywhere were at historical highs!
I said chinook!
Do a search or whatever it takes and you will realize that I never said such a thing.

Most of the numbers are off the top of my head but I do have a good memory for numbers and maybe I should have become an acountant.
No, too boring for me. :grin:

I'll look over the rest of your post in a minute but had to stop there to correct another mistake.
{No insult intended)!

Then as I was posting I saw a derrogatory post by Ty that I will have to look at and address.
Ty is going to school and I think he is overwhelmed with science that doesn't fit his agenda.
That's my personal opinion anyway.

If this is turning into a personal boxing match Ty, I think you already lost but if not, you will.

Dan

edited for spelling (might give that one a try yourself TY) :grin:

[ 03-06-2004, 06:07 PM: Message edited by: Born to be Wild ]

[AuntyM]

Onebadfish,

There should BE a study out there on the seals in Hood Canal, but I have never come across it and neither has anyone I know. I don't believe we have many sea lions though. Just tons (literally) of harbor seals.

The experts were surprised last year when the transient orcas arrived. They had not visited inside the Hood Canal like that since the bridge went in I guess. It was thought that the bridge was an obstacle they would not pass. It's almost as though the orcas knew they needed to come. They stayed far longer than expected too.

All,

I need to go on record, as NOT being anti hatchery. I just think we need to fight for the science to continue, hatcheries be required to change practices and in many cases, start to decrease hatchery plants slowly to see if the wild fish DO begin recovery.

I don't want to see groups like the Pacific Legal Foundation, commercial fishermen and others to dictate what will happen to wild fish.

Hope I am making sense.

[Ty]

Born to be wild.....

This is hardly a personal vendeta... Seriously...

So, since u think I am in ignorant little school boy that knows nothing and is learnin everything about fisheries in school and of course that is all taught wrong in your mind....

My background in fisheries is from hands on experience... Your little chats with biologist here and there are what I live for and have been pursuing for over fifteen years and I engage and trive in these kinds of discussion as often as I can... Better yet, my job deals with these things everyday.. I get to interact w/ biologist and am treated as such... an equal and contribute as much as the next biologist as far a experience and flex my fisheries knowledge muscles with the best of them.......

I am not sure how u find yourself so credible in the world of fisheries... I know I am a little fish swiming in a sea of goliaths that have way more expereince than me. However, the label of student doesn't fit me and I do not fit in that "label" along with my current ongoing fisheries carear with an agency that I shall not mention here.

U seem to go off about one thing.. then another... then u change your mind and go another direction, especially when u are proven wrong...all along the way telling other people how wrong they are and how right u are?

Maybe u don't see the pattern... Maybe u just like to play on Ifish after a few beers and pouring lead all day...I don't care... what I do care is the slanted view point of which most unsupecting Ifish menbers get from your posts, many that are negative... Especially towards the biological side of fisheries that u seem to find yourself as a peer in?

Does making and selling fishing weights qualify u in the world of fisheries? Does reading the summaries of reports and chatting with you biologist friends make u a biologist?

I am really having a hard time finding what your point in you posts are? Are u trying to serve the Ifish publics some kind of fisheries justice and show them these secret "hidden" fisheries studies and literature that we all know is public information?

[Born to be Wild]

Sorry Ty, I've got it along time ago before you ever posted on this board!

Whether it is genetics’ or whatever Ty calls it, they are a different creature.

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

Is this the quote that you were referring to Ty?
Sorry but I didn’t personally see anything wrong with it.
I couldn’t find the thread but one time when I referred to some fish as being genetically different you corrected me and said it could be … differences.
I don’t recall the word you used and I don’t believe it was phenotypic differences.
Anyway my point was whether it was genetic or whatever you pointed out they are still different..

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">So ya see I did admit that you might be right on whether it was genetic or otherwise, I didn't know.
But the one thing I did know is there was the difference!

But I could care less whether your friends consider me as "ignorant sometimes" or not!

I will not sell my sole to politics or money! [img]graemlins/berry.gif[/img]

You are in defiance of science and the resulting reports and biologist and you have made known your personal practices of wild and hatchery fish.

I'm sure there are many that would prefer not to see you in any fishery management position because of your defiance of science.

You are obviously biased towards your love for hatchery fish in my opinion and your closeness with guides.

Your opinion is quite different and in defiance of the scientific community.

But what the heck, you're just a student from Montana and haven't learned the real world yet.
I hope the ifish community realizes that!

By the way Ty, I try not to mention those "turn-off" photo's of the wild fish anymore, but "real biologist" don't pose with wild fish out of the water suffocating for air!

Dan

[boater]

[ 03-06-2004, 07:29 PM: Message edited by: boater ]

[Salmonator]

Originally posted by Born to be Wild:


I will not sell my sole to politics or money! [img]graemlins/berry.gif[/img]

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">Was that some really bad spelling or the pun of the year? :grin:

[Point-of-Sale Clerk]

Gentlemen…

Please…

This is a DISSCUSSION board not an ARGUMENT board… :depressed:

I do not come here to read how either of you feel why you think your opinion is worth more than your opponent.
I am here to read your opinion and the reasons for it.
It matters not who is eventually proven to be correct if at all, what is important is that I be able to understand your position and use it to argue those same points with ODFW fisheries division staff.

Less testosterone and more logic please.



Regards

*** Clerk

[onebadfish]

...off the top of my head? is that were all these studies originate?

still looking forward to catching hatchery springers!

[ 03-06-2004, 08:31 PM: Message edited by: crabbait ]

[Quasimodo the fish killer]

ok enough with the bashing.I didnt start this topic so it could become a ****ing match. I started it to get input of others views

just because a person likes to catch hatchery fish doesnt make them bad

just like Ty I love to whack hatchery fish in the head and to be honest my best friend is a guide probably one of the best in the state. just because of those 2 facts does that make me bad? does it mean that I think wild fish are in the way?

I am not out to say screw the wild fish at all I would love it to be the way it was 200 years ago but it isnt going to happen and at this point other then closing down salmon and steelhead fishing period there has to be hatchery fish.

I wish there were no need for hatchery fish but thats not posible at this time. I would much rather see someone bonk a hatchery fish then a wild fish. I would love to see hatchery fish and wild fish coexist neither doing harm to the other on rivers that have hatchery fish in them.

having an anti hatchery fish stance and starting lawsuites like the ones on the olympic peninsula seems way overboard to me. when evidence clearly shows that the wild runs of fish were in the process of collapsing before the hatcheries started dumping hatchery smolts.

I do not believe this is a problem that is black or white, hatchery fish/ no hatchery fish, like you do born to be wild. there are many factors in the decline of wild fish runs the negative impacts of hatchery fish is only a minor percentage of the problem. you seem to fail to see that.

Quasi.

.

[drano100]

quasi
remember dams raise water temp and salmon and steelhead just don't do well in warm water temps over 70 I think dams add about 1 degree to the average water temp pre dam not good. the water temp in the CR in july, augest, and september run in the mid 70's I don't think that the CR ran that warm before the dams.

Born to be Wild the decline to wild salmon happened long before the massive hatchery run-up you spoke of. In 1974 while I was at OSU in wildlife bio. it was pretty habitat loss was a major cause for declining wild fish runs.

As far as science finlly catching up to the problem I say wait 5 years and they will come up with something completly different as the cause. Remember science 20 years ago had us removing logs and root balls from coastal rivers because they thought that it would help improve the habitat now we are putting them back in the rivers to improve the habitat.

The bottom line is we will never see the wild fish of the past we have done too much damage and there is know way that people today would make the changes in their lifestyle that would be needed to bring the wild fish back. this includes you Born to be Wild you talk the talk but I don't think you could walk the walk.

[crabbait]

Sorry.....took a dinner break.

BTBW and Ty: If you must insult each other while you bicker, please, take it to email.

No more name calling. [img]graemlins/eek13.gif[/img]

[AuntyM]

I obviously missed something.

Anyway... Here's the truth. The decline in wild salmon and steelhead is due to....

Everything you've been told. All 4 H's. I think that BTBW knows this. I also think he and I share the opinion that maybe too much emphasis has been placed on some of those H's while hatchery contributions have been overlooked for convenience sake. I think what he wants from us is for us to keep an open mind.

There were several "experts" who tried to reason with me about hatchery fish being a problem and I blew them off (up? ) There are only two guys who got through to me enough to make me open my mind. BTBW and *** Clerk.

So I hope folks that read this will keep an open mind and press for answers from our F&W departments.

[Born to be Wild]

I do not believe this is a problem that is black or white, hatchery fish/ no hatchery fish, like you do born to be wild. there are many factors in the decline of wild fish runs the negative impacts of hatchery fish is only a minor percentage of the problem. you seem to fail to see that.

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">No Quasi, I don't see it as black or white and I don't know or does anybody else know what percentage of wild fish declines are caused by hatchery fish but it is substantial and a known fact!

Now Quasi if you are still in any kind of uncertaintany or doubt about the detrimental effects of hatchery fish on wild fish, please email me and if you won't take my word for it or the scientific data, I will refer you to many biologist that will.

And if that doesn't work for you, you can start listening to DR. Domento...

[sparkleboy]

Originally posted by Born to be Wild:
You are in defiance of science and the resulting reports and biologist and you have made known your personal practices of wild and hatchery fish.

I'm sure there are many that would prefer not to see you in any fishery management position because of your defiance of science.

You are obviously biased towards your love for hatchery fish in my opinion and your closeness with guides.

Your opinion is quite different and in defiance of the scientific community.

But what the heck, you're just a student from Montana and haven't learned the real world yet.
I hope the ifish community realizes that!

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">Dan,
The ifish community also realizes comments like the above are in poor taste and are very capable of reducing one's credibility.
I think it's safe to say most everyone is tired of these petty insults. Please stay within rational discussion.

[Born to be Wild]

Was that some really bad spelling or the pun of the year? :grin:

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">Bad spelings I guess!

Guess it should have been soul?

But ya know it has bene 30 yeers sense i been in hiscool an i fergot alot!

dano

[Born to be Wild]

Sorry Sparkleboy, but I took another look at it and didn't think it was all that bad.

The guy is a fisheries student and is in disagreement for whatever reasons of fish reports that we post.

He just simply doesn't ever jive with science and I simply challanged him on that.

Sorry.

Dano

[willametteriveroutlaw]

Your black and white interpertation of fisheries science?
last I checked Ty is actually studying this every day and has a ton of hands on expirience... But that isn't as valuable as phone calls to biologists who may or may not be jaded ..Atleast Ty has a foot to stand on in this argument.

[ 03-06-2004, 09:11 PM: Message edited by: willametteriveroutlaw ]

[Born to be Wild]

There were several "experts" who tried to reason with me about hatchery fish being a problem and I blew them off (up? ) There are only two guys who got through to me enough to make me open my mind. BTBW and *** Clerk.

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">Well Aunty M, I am flattered and happy to see that all my hard work and critisimn from the "blind side" hasn't gone unnoticed!


Dano

[ 03-06-2004, 10:03 PM: Message edited by: crabbait ]

[boater]

Limit No. 5 - Artificial Propagation

NMFS believes hatcheries can be managed in a manner that conserves and recovers salmon and steelhead listed under the ESA. Therefore, the 4(d) rule provides a way to permit the "take" of listed fish for a variety of hatchery purposes. A state or Federal hatchery management agency can develop a Hatchery and Genetics Management Plan (HGMP) and seek NMFS' approval. Some of the benefits of the HGMP approach are long-term management planning, more public involvement, and less government paperwork.

NMFS will use the same standard to evaluate HGMPs as those used for section 10 permits: the hatchery program must not jeopardize listed salmon and steelhead, nor lessen the protection they receive. In the HGMPs, hatcheries will be managed according to the listed fishes' status. This will be determined using the concept of "Viable Salmonid Populations." Hatchery activities will be scaled to the degree of risk the listed fish face. When a listed population is at a "critical" level, broodstock collection will be strictly controlled. Once a population achieves a "viable" level, broodstock collection could be less restrictive.

An HGMP must address the specific criteria outlined in the 4(d) rule. An HGMP must (1) specify the goals and objectives for the hatchery program, (2) the donor population's "critical" and "viable" threshold levels, (3) prioritize broodstock collection programs in a manner that benefits listed fish, (4) specify the protocols that will be used for spawning and raising the fish in the hatchery, (5) determine the genetic and ecological effects arising from the hatchery program, (6) describe how the hatchery operation relates to fisheries management, (7) ensure that the hatchery facilities can adequately accommodate listed fish if they are collected for the program, (8) monitor and evaluate the HGMP to ensure that it accomplishes its objectives, and (9) be consistent with tribal trust obligations.

HGMPs are developed and approved in the following manner: A fish management agency, such as a state department of fish and wildlife, develops an HGMP that meets the 4(d) rule criteria. They send it to NMFS who then requests public review and comment. The public input is used to revise the HGMP, if necessary. Once the HGMP is deemed sufficient, NMFS writes a letter of approval to the agency that developed the HGMP. The HGMP is then implemented and the hatchery program addressed in the FMEP will be covered under the ESA. NMFS then monitors and evaluates the HGMP to ensure that the listed fish are recovering.

[PharmDoc]

Has anyone read "My Story As Told By Water" by David James Duncan? He is the author of "The River Why." There is some great info in there on dams and removal (specifically the Columbia/Snake dams, as well as other current environmental issues. Given this and everything else I've read, I'd say dams are unquestionably the first place to point fingers. Of course, they are just one factor in the whole scheme.

[Drakeblake]

I dont have the exact percentage one me but its something like 80-90% of the wild fish decline on the Columbia occurred before the building of the first dam on the river. Ill look that up and repost about it. Yes dams hurt fish migration but they cannot in any way be blamed as the main cause in wild fish decline.

BTBW you said that "real biologists" dont pose with wild fish out of water? Have you ever seen the pics when they are transferring them from traps to upstream locations or while they are doing electro-shock? Maybe Im missing the point here but didnt you just post some pictures the other week where you were holding wild fish out of water?


-blake

[ 03-06-2004, 09:25 PM: Message edited by: drakeblake ]

[B-run]

Holly smokes fishbro's, don't we all know we're all on the same side?
Nates will never be the same as they were?
Drano100 stated "we have allready done too much damage."The folks like TY, that have a passion, and as well as others, I feel are doing their best to help preserve and enhance what we have.
dams, nets,environment,logging,etc.have been, are and will be a pain in our drift butts,boats.
It will continue, this is not little house on the prarie. We fish,we love fish,let's work together for the things we love.
Have your differences, but for Gods sake, we are all on the same path.
I'm not positive I've ever caught a native in my life. Although I've landed alot of non fin clipped fish.
Lets go drift fish a zipperlip crick in Saddle Mountain

[Born to be Wild]

&lt;inflamatory post deleted&gt;

[ 03-06-2004, 09:55 PM: Message edited by: crabbait ]

[corkyking]

Quasimodo: I think that your questions are not "all over the board" at all. I think that you have spent a lot of time on a very productive mental excercise. Applause applause - well said.

I would suggest that you go one step farther and consider that since the hatchery programs have been in place for years and years before fin-clipping that the wild stocks of all the anadromous fish in the Northwest have been so diluted as to be essentially non-existant.

I agree with you that we waste valuable and dwindling resources demanding that we save something that doesn't exist.

[Ty]

Is this the quote that you were referring to Ty?
Sorry but I didn’t personally see anything wrong with it.
I couldn’t find the thread but one time when I referred to some fish as being genetically different you corrected me and said it could be differences.
I don’t recall the word you used and I don’t believe it was phenotypic differences.
Anyway my point was whether it was genetic or whatever you pointed out they are still different..
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I believe this is the quote where refering to Dan where I don't beleive in Hard science and where "I didn't mention physiological differences?" [img]graemlins/eek13.gif[/img]

Do u even read my replies???? [img]graemlins/1zhelp.gif[/img]

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">posted 02-16-2004
Caution Dano......

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

All the same traits 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 should 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....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" your theory is just another opinion.

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 introduce them to two totally diffent environments, u will have two very very different fish that exhibit different behavior, physiological and morphological characteristics that may seriously disable them to be able to survive and more inportantly reproduce.

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

[ 03-06-2004, 10:52 PM: Message edited by: Ty ]

[KingFisher85]

kids

[skybuster]

Very well stated Ty.

Dano, it's great that you're passionate about native fish. The problem is that you're thinking is so far left that it is hard to agree with you even when you may be correct on certain subjects.

I don't have the proof Ty is seeking so this is just my opinion.

I believe the hatcheriies currently provide a much needed resource in the northwest. It would be great if we still had the native runs, but over the years we have destroyed most of their traditional spawning areas. So even if we eliminated the hatcheries tomorrow, the natives wouldn't be showing back up in 5 years or even 20 years.

I believe that the broodstock programs are a step in the right direction, and that the hatcheries need to keep adapting to the needs of the fish. People like Ty are doing valuable work right now that may well mold the hatcheries of the future.

The thought that the hatcheries are to blame is ridiculous. The truth of the matter is that without the hatcheries the runs would have died out long ago. Without hatcheries the runs would have dwindled to low enough numbers that the sport and commercial fisherman probably wouldn't have been targeting them. This would have resulted in fewer license sales, fewer boat sales, less tourism, and basically a much smaller fishing economy.

Look around today at all the people on the water. Look at all the new boats, and sites like ifish. I would have to argue that none of this would exist right now if it hadn't been for hatcheries. If none of this existed you probably wouldn't have organizations like NW Steelheaders or TU either.

Like it or not Dano we need the hatcheries, but the hatcheries also need us.

There, that's officially my longest post.

[crabbait]

Maybe I am losing my ability to communicate with the written word. I will try again.

This thread is about one inflamatory post from being closed. I would like for it to continue because I think that some good information and some good opinions are being exchanged.

However, we will not allow this thread to turn into a name calling contest. Treat others with respect or the thread will be closed and I will ask that the offenders have their ability to post suspended until they can convince us that they are capable of expressing themselves while respecting the opinions of others.

[Born to be Wild]

Drakeblake, I am not a biologist and I don't hold pictures of fish out of water either.

I have one picture of a rare summer chum caught in the Siletz River a friend took and that is all.
That is one of out of a thousand pictures I have on my PC.

[ 03-06-2004, 10:49 PM: Message edited by: crabbait ]

[Ty]

Wow,

Dan thanks fer your input.... very classy...

By the way.... there are thousands of pictures of fish biologist holding fish out of the water.... Please address the subject....

So... I was right about hatchery fish genetics.... Imagine that.....

[ 03-06-2004, 10:46 PM: Message edited by: Ty ]

[willametteriveroutlaw]

Part of management is making the majority of the fishermen and user groups happy. Thats where hatcheries and supplementation come into place. 80% of steelhead fishermen oppose wild steelhead take no matter what the situation. no one has a problem taking a hatchery fish (even you dano.. Don't call me a liar I have seen numerous pics of you with hatchery cohos) As far as you thinking that we all disregard science, I don't want hatcheries on every stream and I know that hatchery interbreeding can be a bad thing in certain cases. But you also have to look at studies objectively, every scientific study has quite a bit of a persons feeling interfering with the objectivity of it. Most researchers start out with a hypothesis and work towards proving it. (someting you learn in college) As far as evolution, whether or not you believe in creation, you can see in seccessive generations genetic adaption to dealing with the envirment they are given.. (survival of the fittest, hence their genetics get passed on)