hatchery fish vs. wild fish is there a difference??????

[hustlerrjim]

Salmon Trout Steelhead magazine [feb mar.2002]has two articles that are a must read for all steelheaders.
The first one [p 4]is by 5 world famous ret. biologists which says all hatchery fish come from wild fish to start with.so how can there be a diff????My thought on this is-if you have a male and female lab their pups will be labs, not chiuhawa
the second article The River WHY [p 30] is a very interesting scietific study on the klama river; which states they found no detrimental effect of hatchery fish and wild fish spawning together;
This article also spells out the fact there was no dna test to determine lineage until 2000,but I have been hearing braying from the south forty they have been using dna tests to tell the diff between hatchery fish and wild fish for years. including odfw.
I wait with bated breath for the studies I was promised for these reports by the wild fish huggers.

[Pete]

Well, Jim, you know as well as I do there's a BIG difference between wild and hatchery fish. The hatchery ones have an eroded dorsal!

Ok, that really isn't the story, is it. Yes there are some physical signs on some hatchery fish which belie their origin. I think the real question isn't whether there are genetic differences, but rather, whether there are behavioral ones. Behavior isn't a genetic trait. But behavior will determine whether a fish is able to survive. I don't think we've seen research into the why's and wherefore's of this to the extent that anyone can tell us anything.

When I catch a fish, I can't tell until I see it where it was reared. The real question is whether the behavioral changes that we don't know enough about may result in phylogenic changes that might affect long term species vitality.

[DanS]

Do you think if Michael Jordan was kept in a concrete box until he was 12 years old that he'd have turned out to be "Air" Jordan?

Genetics is only half the game there, Jim. Identical twins are EXACTLY the same GENETICALLY, but if you know any twins, you know they aren't the same person. Simlar, but hardly the same.

Interesting reading, to be sure, but you might want to THINK a little more about the conclusions you draw.

[BuKuBass]

hustlerrjim re. "bated breath": Please post your receipe in the "creative cooking" thread.

[Point-of-Sale Clerk]

hustlerrjim

It seems that a lot of discussion on this board regarding the difference between Hatchery and wild salmonids revolves around genetics or the “genotype” of each run (the sum total of the genetic information contained in an organism) Although many can argue, based purely on genetic parameters, that there is no difference between hatchery and wild salmon, it is not the best approach. Phenotype is what distinguishes the difference between hatchery and wild. Phenotype is the visible or measurable properties of an organism that are produced by the interaction of the genotype and the environment. It is the environment, in the case of hatchery and wild salmon that selects different characteristics providing better survivability in the unique environment over many generations.

A poor comparison could be made to people. Every human being, with the exception of some lawyers I know, are the same species (they can all inter-breed or procreate amongst themselves) Yet environmental factors have produced many different phenotypic characteristics. For example, a person whose ancestors were from the desert regions of southern Africa will generally look different then someone whose ancestors were from northern Europe. Other qualities besides hair and skin coloration are selected this way. An Eskimo may have temporal characteristics needed to survive the winters (storing food for the long winter or staying off the ice flows when they may break up) that a Pigmy may not have developed. Although groups of peoples may look outwardly the same, it is their ability to make do with the environment they are presented with that will determine their overall success.

Other comparisons could be easily made to dogs. All are the same species, but with both natural and artificial selection, many different breeds are now recognized. Although all dog breeds exhibit positive and negative traits, what dog would you want to be sent to your rescue if you are lost on the ski-slopes, a Saint Bernard with a keg of brandy around its neck, or a Chihuahua with a tee shirt from Taco bell? More than likely the Chihuahua would freeze long before it could give you your new shirt.

In the case of salmon, hatcheries have replaced artificial selection for natural selection. Poor management has further reduced the historic natural selection that created the once thriving runs of indigenous salmon.

Even some of the tribal interests are beginning to understand the importance of native stock and phenotypic differences. Historically, tribal hatchery proponents have always indicated, “a fish is a fish”. But now things for some are changing. Found at: http://www.critfc.org/text/trp2_pln13.htm

Recommendation 9a
“The existing Leavenworth Hatchery program should be changed by acquiring broodstock from the Wenatchee River natural production areas. Trapping in the Wenatchee River system should occur at Tumwater Dam or an appropriate tributary if stock identification data indicates significant genotypic or phenotypic differences among the various populations above Tumwater Dam

It seems there may be hope for even the most stubborn amongst us…

*** Clerk

Main Entry: phe·no·type
Pronunciation: 'fE-n&-"tIp
Function: noun
Etymology: German Phänotypus, from Greek phainein to show + typos type
Date: circa 1911
: the visible properties of an organism that are produced by the interaction of the genotype and the environment

genotype [jen´ tp´; j´n tip´] ( pc | mac ) Genetics. the sum total of the genetic information contained in an organism; the genetic constitution of a cell or organism. Systematics. the type species of a genus, or the type specimen of that genus.

http://www.nwfsc.noaa.gov/pubs/tm/tm2/tm2.html

[Hoosier Daddy]

Gee. Sounds like this thread should have been titled "There is no difference between hatchery and wild fish, ya wild fish treehuggers".

If you knew the answer, why the hell did you ask?!?

There is a difference--hatchery fish aren't impacted by a-holes throwing barbed wire in the river, wild fish are.

Oh, and incidentally, I had a college class in fish genetics with one of the world famous biologists in that article, and I took an entirely different message away from the class than what he has been saying since he retired from teaching.

[ 02-01-2002, 11:03 AM: Message edited by: chnookie ]

[4Salt]

What surprises me the most about this thread is that Hustlerjim with his "Many degrees" still feels compelled to seek the answer to this question from potential "Wild fish huggers" [img]graemlins/idea.gif[/img]

[tommo]

Everything I've seen and heard suggests that wild steelhead are better fighters.

[Bubzilla]

One word has thus far escaped this discussion: diversity. This is all much more simple than we usually try to make it. Because of the anadromous life cycle of salmon and steelhead, and the fact that their homing behavior compels them to retrun to the river of their ancestory, they tend to differentiate into local breeding populations that are unique to a given drainage, or to a particular stretch of a given drainage, or to a single tributary of a given drainage, and so on. The differences between these populations can be quantified by genetics or behavior or by whatever means a particular interest group may choose, but it is impossible to deny, without completely ignoring reality, that each is unique. After all, nobody in their right mind would argue that a summer steelhead on the Rogue River is the same as a winter steelhead on the Nestucca--they may share similarities, but they are far from identical. And it is not simply a question of whether hatchery and wild fish are the same; there is a question as to whether in some places they are too much the same.

Biological diversity and population structure are one of the keys to the sustainability of naturally reproducing anadromous fish populations in the Pacific Northwest. There really is no credible way to deny that hatchery practices, which have been used now for over 100 years to mitigate the effects of human activity, have adversely impacted wild populations--particularly with regard to both diversity and population structure. Captive broodstock programs, for example, have had obvious implications with regard to reduced variation. The practice of using hatchery stocks derived from populations adapted to other drainages similarly speaks for itself. Although, it is always interesting to see someone quote a study which purports to support the minority view that hatchery stocks have not adversely impacted diversity or population structure, the overwhelming majority position among scientists is that these practices, and others, have had a negative impact on wild populations. But that's really not the issue.

What each of us should really be asking ourselves is what is the probablity of survival or extinction of naturally reproducing populations of salmon and steelhead in the Pacific Northwest? Over what sort of time line can we accurately make those predictions? What would be the social and economic cost of their loss, and what would be the social and economic costs of their protection? Given those realities, what should we really be focusing our efforts on in order to achieve goals that are at least arguably attainable?

Addressing the impacts, alleged impacts for the sake of those who believe they have no impact, of hatcheries is only part of the equation--not even the largest part. For example, even the most ardent supporter or advocate for wild salmon and steelhead populations must recognize the importance of habitat. It is also important to recognize that there is a significant difference between restoration to pre-Columbian wild populations and distributions, and sustaining naturally reproducing populations where they exist today--the latter being a long-shot possiblity, the former a fanciful dream.

Bison provide an excellent example from Amercian history. It is generally held that their populations once saw numbers in excess of 40 million. Today the number of free-roaming bison is only slightly higher than the readership of this board. I think we all recognize that their near-destruction was a loss--social, economic, even hedonic. But we must also recognize that their plight was in many ways the natural and probable consequence of progress in the West. I think we all agree that protections must be in place to ensure the survival of the species, and, where practical, they should be promoted to expand their numbers. But I doubt that many of us would argue that the we should be trying to turn back the clock and restore their herds to 40 million. Most of us would recognize that political, social, and economic realities would place such a movement on par with trying to build a land bridge to Mars.

My point some may be asking? It's very difficult to argue that hatchery fish aren't one of the problems facing wild fish. That's the reality given the science we have today. Unfortunately, it is similarly difficult to argue for the complete cessation of hatchery stocking. That's simply the reality of the matter given current social, political, and economic values prevelant throughout the Pacific Northwest--values that are unlikely to change in the foreseeable future. I think it's safe to say that hatcheries are here to stay; the question is whether the same can be said for wild salmon and steelhead populations. And arguing with each other about the differences between wild and hatchery fish, perceived or real, does nothing to assure their future.

Just my .02 cents. OK, there was probably closer to a buck there.

[ 02-01-2002, 04:49 PM: Message edited by: Bubzilla ]

[THE REEL HEY_YALL]

Nature vs. Nirture

simplicity in its finest

re-read DanS's post above.

[Mad Mikey]

Hook a hatchery Winter fish on a plug or anything else then hook a wild fish and you tell me the difference.
Them big bad boys will tear you up and keep fighting in the same time it takes you to fight, land and clean your hatchery fish, drag it to the truck, put it in your cooler and down a couple of beers.
They may all be steelhead but there IS a difference. Most of our hatchery strains are raised in a half dozen tanks and them dumped in umpteen rivers of vastly distant distances from the ocean. Fish that are bred to go 50 miles may have to go several hundred miles or just ten. They are a lost and wandering sort of creature. Don't get me wrong, I love em' all but pound for pound I'll take on a big native from the Sandy or a coastal stream and not worry about what's in my freezer. If it were all about meat I'd save a buck or two and go to the fish market!!!

cheers,

Mad Mikey

[Salmonator]

Nirture? Is that how the spell "nurture" down in 'bama redneck? :tongue: So Dan, if what you're saying is true then what we need is to is more closely duplicate a smolts natural surroundings (habitat/food/predators) in a hatchery holding device.

I am absolutely convinced that a broodstock steelhead comes back physically identical to a native fish as far as appearance and fight go. I have seen this first hand. What I am not convinced of is the notion that a returning broodstock fish will be less successful breeding in the wild and will pass on genes that might make the next generation a weaker fish. Living in a concrete pond might take away any survival smarts that could be aquired from the fry stage on up, yet we still have excellent returns on our broodstock rivers. Doesn't that mean that there is something different about these fish that allows them to have a higher returning percentage than their inbred cousins which are raised in similar ponds? What is particularly hard for me to believe/understand is that spending a few months in a concrete pond will change the genes in a fish that would make it a less than desireable natural spawner. I would bet Micheal Jordan would be just as successful at spawning and passing on the same genes whether he spent the first 12 years in his life in a concrete box or not. :shocked:

[birdhunter]

No offense meant to anyone, but reading over a lot of these threads reminds me of an article I read by Doug Crow once. He said (very tounge in cheek) that there were three paths which you could take to become a wildlife manager.

The first was to go to school. Study hard at college, read a lot of books, take a lot of classes, study under the tutelage of masters, get your degree, masters or perhaps PhD, do field work and internships, get paid very little, research, work your way through the beaurocracy and government red tape, until finally one day, you lifetime of dedication and experience had brought you the respect of your peers and superviors. Only then would your opinon matter and you would be able to effectively manage wildlife. Then all you had to say, "This is my experince and qualifications based upon a lifetime of work in the field and here's what I think....". This was by far the worst path to go by.

The second path was to be have hunted or fished in the area. Then all you had to do was say, "Well hell, I've hunted/fished there, let me tell you what needs to be done....". This was the second best path to go about managing wildlife.

The final and absolutlely best path to becoming a wildlife manager was to have been born there. Then all you had to do is say, "Well hell, I was born there and back in the day it wasn't like that, here's what you need to do....".



[ 02-01-2002, 04:01 PM: Message edited by: birdhunter ]

[Stz ll]

I think the hardest fighting steelhead I have caught are summer run fish on the Santiam River. They are all hatchery fish.

Pete

[willierower]

Its all a bunch of wild fish hugging hippy crap! :grin:

From what I have read there is no differnce beween "hatchery" and "wild" salmon or steelhead. The Hatchery stock came from wild fish. Read that article in STS it lays eevrything out in black and white.

And for you people who say that "wild" fish fight harer than a "hatchery" fish. Thats ********! Just think about this.........most hatchery winter steelhead return to the rivers when the air and water temps are at the lowest. The bulk of the wild fish return later in the winter when air and water temps are a few degress warmer. The water temp is the determining factor in how "hard" the fish fights.
On the size of the fish.... Hatchery fish can get just as big as some wild fish get. On streams that have a hatchery on them I rareley catch large hatchery fish. But on streams that have hatchery fish out planted in them I have caught some rather large hatchery steelhead. When a steelhead returns to the hatchery and is spawned. It is killed or placed in a lake for the trout fisherman to take. On a stream that doesnt have a hatchery the fish may spawn in the wild and return to the ocean, then make it back to the stream a second time much larger. In fact 2 of my largest winter steelhead (17 and 18lbs) were hatchery fish........... the other fish was wild and he was as big or bigger than the other 2. Since he was released without being removed from the water I cant honestly tell you if he was bigger...........

I could go on and on about hatchery vs. wild fish. But Im sure most of you dont want me to :smile: .

I would rather fish later in the year whn the bulk of the fish are wild, The crowds just arnt there at those times.....

[Fishen Fool]

Yes, yes, yes to what Willyrower says!!! Just yesterday I caught 4 Steelhead, 2 natives and 2 hatchery and I sure as heck couldn't tell any difference in the fight! After rereading Willyrowers post there is one thing that I don't agree with. A second time spawner isn't much bigger than it was the first time it spawned, as it comes back the next year and all it's energy is used in growing new eggs. The bigger fish are the one's that spend a extra year or 2 in the salt.

[ 02-01-2002, 05:20 PM: Message edited by: Fishen Fool ]

[DanS]

Sal,

Yes, I believe a hatchery that mimics the wild would be a better option than what we have done in the past.

As for MJ's genes, I think that his genetics give him (and his offspring) the POTENTIAL to be a great athlete, but whether you fulfill that potential is where the "nurture" part comes in. Same with the fish........the offspring of the big, bad fish have the potential to be big and bad themselves BUT aren't destined to be big and bad unless they face the same hazards in the same environment that their parents did. If you tear apart a Chevy and a Ford, they're both made of the same stuff, but they aren't the same truck when all is said and done.

PS: Comparing winter and summer fish isn't a valid comparison.......the water has as much to do with their differences as anything alse.

[STGRule]

One of the reasons that hatchery fish don't reproduce as well in the wild is that as juveniles they had an artificial survival rate. Fish that wouldn't survive disease in the wild, survive with drugs in the hatchery. They can pass on the weakness to their offspring. They won't survive in the wild. Small physical deformities, such as a lighter pigmentation, effected fish will survive bird predation in a hatchery situation that they wouldn't in the wild. There are other things, but let's just discuss these two items. What does this mean to the adult fish that return? Absolutley nothing as they have survived by shear size at release. The problem comes when they breed with wild fish. The progeny of two wild fish will not be born with either of these characteristics as those fish were weeded out as juveniles. So a higher percent of the juveniles of those two fit parents will survive to return as fit adults. When a hatchery fish with poor survival characteristics breeds with a fit wild fish, the survival of the progeny of those two fish will be less as natural selection in the wild will weed them out. The only bad product of two hatchery fish breeding will be competition for spawning space and food competition until the weak fish are dead. So who cares? Let's say you have a stretch of river that will support 10 breeding pairs of fish. If all the fish spawning there are wild (and have been for a long time) The number of smolting juveniles will be at the carrying capacity of that piece of water which translates into higher adult returns. Anytime you mix in hatchery fish you will have less-than carrying capacity for that stretch of water and then lower adult reurns. So what do you do? Add more hatchery fish to bring up the carrying capacity? This is what we do now and we know that doesn't work. Leave it all alone and let nature work it all out in a few generations? That might work if you haven't depressed the stock and the habitat to the point where it can't recover on its own.
What't the magic bullet solution? Just about anything different than what we are doing now. *** Clerk had some excellent suggestions to increase the fitness of hatchery fish. I don't think we will ever be able to really get out from under the hatchery systems. They just need to be run differently, with different goals. It's the habitat, habitat, habitat stupid. Anything and everything we can do to improve that will help. Quit pointing fingers and blaming everybody else for the one small part of the big problem that they are responible for. Suck it up and do what we can TOGETHER. Okay, I'm done. And all this from a liberal, greenie, tree-hugging, hippie, wild fish hugger. (Maybe we need a poll on what labels we are willing to wear).

[Salmonator]

Fishen fool, you caught two natives and two BROODSTOCK FISH. Fight was the same, no big suprise. There is no comparison between an alsea fish and the fish you caught given the same size. Alsea fish are scrawny turds that practically throw themselves on the bank. I can tell immediately when I hook a native on the Alsea. Can't say the same about the Siletz. Ooops I said it....

[Salmonator]

STGRule, that was a great post. At least one that I could finally understand regarding hatchery boo-boo's...

[Joe]

In my personal opinion Salmonator is right on the money. I think "hatchery" fish have been getting a bad rap for years due to the fact that some of the stocks being used are to domesticated. From my observations a hatchery fish one generation from wild parents creates an entirely different creature than using hatchery born brood.

Oh yeah, one real advantage to hatchery steelhead is that you can take them home to eat! [img]graemlins/idea.gif[/img]

[jberry]

Kind of like comparing silicone implants to natural. Sure they look and feel real, but in the back of your mind you will always know that they are fake.

[birdhunter]

Ah yes, Lannan v. Hall

Who'll win that one Chinookie?

[hustlerrjim]

nice bunch of ***.replys and ideas are brought out,but----everybody missed the most important fact and that is- a lot of smolts leave the upper rivers and then dont return as adults,this is pointed out in both articles.
The screw traps tell us the spawning areas are in exellent shape,so forget the habitat, habitat,habitat as was posted,this is easy to point the finger in this direction,but remember the screw trap?a lot of people don't want to see these results,esp.the tree huggers.because it blows their theory all to hell,
So whats the problem?????
1st.lets look at the hatchery,the hatchery crews are dedicated hard working under paid people that are governed by a bunch of people in potland that are making decicions they know nothing about.
2nd put in a wildfish maniac such as a distric bio.Bob Buckman feeding these people in potland imformation to satisfy his personal beleifs and you have the recipe for a disaster.
Heres an example;we all agree that hatchery fish are smaller-why??the directive came out a few years back [bob buckman] that the hatchery crews grab each fish for spawning as it comes big ,small ,jacks,whatever,and use these for spawning,
If you was a farmer would you breed your smallest animals to propigate the herd- hell no ,but thats exactly what odfw is doing,and we are seeing the results,{he runts dont get to spawn in the wild]or in our society.
Go to the Quinalt hatchery where they selective spawn and see the size and nos.
Last but not least,and both articles pointed this out,the low nos. of returning adults,
Both articles point the finger at ocean conditions and predation,but again potland opposes any control over predation.
It has been proven the smolts can be protected,during the elnino years we had exellent fishing,due to protecting the smolts.
Great posts,lots of opinions,few of which agree with me,but a lot of intrest;hey ***- whats a
fe-n&-"tIp???????

[STGRule]

hustlerrjim: When I say habitat, I mean ALL the habitat the animal will encounter during its entire life cycle, stream, river, estuary, near-shore ocean, off-shore ocean and every thing on the way back. Since the animal has different habitat requirements at different life-stages, it all has to match. A stream that has high, cool water that is perfect for spawning at one time of year and low, warm, stagnant water at the time the adults return won't support the fish through its entire life cycle.
PS. Runts DO spawn in nature. They are called jacks. Its natures way of insureing any one generations genes survive in the population in case of natural disaster. Remember St. Helens?

[ 02-02-2002, 09:39 AM: Message edited by: STGRule ]

[Hoosier Daddy]

Look, like it or not, it appears that we need both hatchery and wild fish to keep/maintain/improve/whatever or fish runs. Just a fact of life. Yeah, wild fish "huggers" could say that if you do x,y,z wild fish would be able to do it all. And hatchery proponents could say that if we just kept improving our systems, we would eventually get there with hatchery fish. They may both be right, or both be wrong, doesn't matter because neither is going to happen. So, wild fish "huggers" need to accept the fact that there will always be hatchery fish and people that want more hatchery fish. And hatchery pros need to accept that some people will always want wild over hatchery fish. We need the wild fish, and we are dependent on hatchery fish. Simple as that. So, we try to preserve our wild fish the best we can, and we try to improve hatchery practices to make them more "natural".

Incidentally, one way I can think of to make hatcheries more "natural" is to spawn fish the way Jim described. We don't know what makes one wild fish hot and bothered over another wild fish. I've never seen an indication that it was size alone. Point being, if you just grab big fish to spawn, yeah you might get big fish, but you might lose a lot of other traits by selecting for that trait. Selecting for big fish, early returning fish, etc. was done for many many years, and all it caused then was trouble for us now. Contrast that with spawning fish randomly. Still not the best situation, the best would be to know what the fish "want" and give it to them. We will never be that good. So if you pick spawners at random, at least you are minimizing the probability that you will select for traits at all. I know some people want big fish. Personally, I would rather have small, medium, and large fish for the rest of my life, my daughters life, etc. than I would have hogs for 20 or 50 years.

Jim, though I don't agree with you on much, I will spot you this: there are a lot of people out there that ARE too hung up on wild only fish. Just like there are a lot of people on the other side. Like I said, neither side is going away, so they better learn to get along.

[STGRule]

I forgot to add this: And all this from a liberal, greenie, tree-hugging, hippie, wild fish hugger (who likes to eat hatchery steelhead).

[Bubzilla]

I'd say the implant analogy holds true. But I would add that most of us would have to say that in the errr...ahhh...excitement of the moment, pedigrees aren't generally all that important in either case.

In regard to the statement that habitat isn't an issue, I can only recommend a very good book on the topic: "Salmon Without Rivers: A History of the Pacific Salmon Crisis" by Jim Lichatowich. Just as one of the most glaring examples, access to well over half of the Columbia was blocked by the construction of a single dam. That is a habitat problem. Arguing that habitat isn't the real issue is like claiming sex isn't the biggest factor in teenage pregnancy rates, i.e., possible only if you're willing to completely bury your head in the sand.

[Straydog]

Great thread and real interesting.... even for a burnt out guy that just drove 3 1/2 hours home after sitting through a 7 hour meeting in Salem with the Fishing Screening Task Force.

One man's hippie ******** is anothers hippie passion.... whaddyagonnado??

Some knee jerk thoughts....

Willie Rower, come down to the lower Rogue half pounder fishing with me one fall and I will put up a case of your favorite beverage that says I can break a 90% accuracy in calling a wild half pounder vs hatchery half pounder shortly after hookup.

Fishen Fool, you say "yes, yes, yes" to what Willierower says and then describe a scenario that does not support that when you say you caught hatchery and wild winter fish on the same day..... blows Willie Rowers theory of air and water temp determining fight....... I'm ssssooo confused!! :whazzup:

Hutlerjim, you confirmed my suspicion. You ain't so tough but you sure know how to get folks talking! :grin:

I agree with a lot of what you say but think we need to be sure we look at each basin or system seperately. It sounds like on your river habitat may not be the issue given what you have learned from the traps.

On the other hand, there are systems in which habitat is indeed an issue.

'Night all.....

[Point-of-Sale Clerk]

Hustlerrjim

You are very correct regarding river habitat not being so bad on many coastal rivers. Unfortunately you are missing the point that there are several different habitats that are very important to the lifecycle of salmon. The most important that I believe we should be addressing on all our coastal rivers is the river estuary. Through filling in or draining of marshes or chanelization of the river deltas we have reduced the size of our estuaries to only a fraction of their historic amount. Add to that the loss of much of the organic nutrients we now remove from the ecosystem from harvesting and hatchery intervention.

If plenty of smolts are leaving the rearing habitat than why do you feel it is necessary to augment runs with hatcheries? Are not hatcheries supposed to augment wild runs by bypassing the high mortality of the rearing habitat of the river? Please explain your logic as to why we should continue as we are now.

Bubzilla

Good post

STGRule

Good post, thanks for the kind words…

Birdhunter

No offence, but the first way you described to become a wildlife manager is the way you create cookie-cutter biologists. All thinking alike and trying to solve problems in the same classical antiquated manner, each person falling into the same train of thought when presented with salmonid issues. It is time we break that cycle. As far as I am concerned we need every “rednecks with a computer” kicking sand in the faces of the lifer biologists and demanding proof.
Prove your hypothesis with peer reviewed scientific study and not “your belief” from a lifetime of fieldwork.

They should help solve the problems or take their ball and go home…

Straydog

sorry I missed todays meeting...

*** Clerk

[Vinny]

Not to make light of this interesting thread, but I can't help but side track from being serious for a moment.

jberry,

Speaking of implants, did you hear about the hatchery hen who got an artifical adipose fin to make herself more attractive to the wild bucks?

Punch line anyone??

[hustlerrjim]

great disscusion here!!!no name calling,and a lot of differnt thoughts on the problems the fish face in the coastal rivers,
I think we all agree there are numerous factors that need to be addressed and a lot of them have been brought up,esp. the lower estuary,
I am sending jen a picture of a coupla cormorants we shot with the feds back in 88 [I haven't learned how to publiish a pic],to give youse guys an Idea of the predation going on in the lower estuareys.But odfw went to great lengths to cancel the smolt protection program ,even with this and the radio tagging progams telling them they have a huge problem.with predation.
Why do we need hatcherys?????
There is no way,the natural spawning could keep up with the predation,commercial harvest,and the sports fishing industry,even in the wildest dreams of the fish huggers and their perfect world they would like to see.we must have hatchry fish to supplement the sport fishing industry,
Surprisingly I am in full agreement to keep only the nueterd [fin clipped] fish as long as we keep the production levels of the hatcherys the same.
Another surprise to me was bird hunters reply that if you lived and fished there all your life you should see the problems as they develop and know how to fix them,I think we have seen a lot of problems here on the n.fork and have solved them our own way.Snagging????????
Again I say thank you for the lively disscusions and i am very pleased to see the train of thinking has changed from only one part of the habitat to the entire spectrum,
Look for the cormorant pic.if jen will post it

[Straydog]

Thanks to you too Jim for your input....
Your right, it is a very multifaceted (is that word?) problem and needs attention from all angles with priorities set by watershed in my mind.

I have some video of Merganser's on the Rogue dining on the outmigration thanks to the buffet provided them at Savage Rapids Dam that would blow you away.

When I visited Gordon Smith in Washington a few years back he said we need to start "bonking sealions and blasting some birds", let's start "urging" him to make that happen...

[Mad Mikey]

<< QUOTED
Some knee jerk thoughts....

Willie Rower, come down to the lower Rogue half pounder fishing with me one fall and I will put up a case of your favorite beverage that says I can break a 90% accuracy in calling a wild half pounder vs hatchery half pounder shortly after hookup.

Fishen Fool, you say "yes, yes, yes" to what Willierower says and then describe a scenario that does not support that when you say you caught hatchery and wild winter fish on the same day..... blows Willie Rowers theory of air and water temp determining fight....... >>

Good job on those points Straydog, I'll throw in a case of Widmer and do the same on the Deschutes. :tongue:
Water temps might be a small factor, can be a big one as to aggressiveness. I was on the Sandy recently and hooked three fish, one hatchery, two natives, all bright. The hatchery fish did a few good shakes, one jump, a couple of runs and was done for. Both wild fish tore me up, going upstream, downstream, multiple jumps and long runs, neither was ready to give up even as I was trying to unbutton em'.
To Willie Rowers credit(though he didn't mention it) I have found those early Summer hatchery fish(generally Skamania strain) to be awesome fighters. They come in the rivers earlier than other strains and are chuck full of reserve energy. Thazz' why they taste so good! :grin:
Hens tend to put up a better fight(go figger...), the few bucks I've had that really put on a show have been a very small percent. :depressed:
I think there's a place for both fish, don't even want to imagine life without Summer steelhead OR those bada** wild fish. And I will admit it, I've hugged both....

entertaining thread guys, thanks!

Mad Mikey

[Fishen Fool]

Straydog,I don't see what is so confusing, if the water was warmer I think that they (hatchery & native) would both have fought more.

[Jennie@ifish]

Jim wanted me to post this picture. (yish!)

It came from This article. (Click to see).

Opps, my buddy *** beat me to it.

[ 02-03-2002, 02:37 PM: Message edited by: Jennie@ifish ]

[OneLastCast]

Good discussion:

However, about the picture....there are some people around town (who are of the more green persuasion) who think that we should cut HustlerJim open to see how many steelhead reside within his belly. :grin: :grin: [img]graemlins/1zhelp.gif[/img]

OneLastCast

[Point-of-Sale Clerk]

[hustlerrjim]

one last cast----you might find a cormorant in jims belly,
getting started on handicap ramp going to salem for money