Non inflammatory thread for pro hatchery folk

[AuntyM]

Please don't get rude with each other here. I am trying to learn!

I have questions for Ty I guess. Ty, please keep in mind, I have very little science education background.

How is it that a wild fish is NOT displaced by a hatchery fish? The hatchery fish have been bred to be unfair competition for the wild fish.

The wild fish may be outnumbered five to one. The hatchery fish has been fed "super" food and is older and larger. He is eating food that will no longer be available for the wild fish. He is likely even using wild fish fry as part of his food source. This will occur throughout the life cycle. This hatchery fish is a steelhead. He is impacting all wild steelhead and every wild salmon species present in river X. The larger, bigger hatchery fish will take the best cover and hold his territory by force. The fish outmigrate and then return to spawn. Here we see hatchery fish competing for room on the spawning beds. We know even if their attempts are successful, their offspring won't likely make it back.

It would be like allowing our country to have open immigration and giving the new immigrants immediate citizenship AND public assitance AND huge capital AND your home and then wondering why you don't have a job and are homeless.

[5-Cents]

I think a lot of the hatchery thing is economic driven. Take a look at the Columbia River when the springers are in, or B-10 when the fish are in, or the Wilson, the Rogue, etc... There is a ton of money being pumped into the economy for gas, bait, boats not to metnion the commercial fishing, guides, hotels, resturants. The list is endless.

Take another look around and see how much our population base has changed over the past 50 years. If there werent any hatcheries around the population would have already wiped out most of the wild fish. Heap on the fact that probably 100's of millions of $$$ over that time would have been yanked from the economy and you have a heap of bad news.

I dont know about the rest of you but I dont think I would be spending big $$$ on boats and gear to go out and chase carp!

It seems that the our fisheries are headed in the right direction. Broodstock programs, conservation, catch and release are all pretty new to out sport. I am sure that science and stewardship will continue to grow making things even better. Take a look know where the Columbia is compared to 20 years ago. Fishing is better!

[Quasimodo the fish killer]

I think there is a lot of room for growth in hatchery science. it isnt perfect by any means but at least they are going in the right direction.

if hatchery smolts are bigger and stronger when they are released then wild fish and eat the wild fish maybe hatchery smolts should be released sooner so they are the same size as the wild smolts. but you must restore the watershed health so there is enough feed ect to support the population of fish, wild and hatchery. I am sure there are a ton of things that can be done that would be help to improve the wild populations coexist with hatchery fish its a matter of just trying them. we need young fresh guys like TY working with in the system that arent afraid to try somethng new and step beyond what the books have said for the last 50 years. science is ever changing what is believed today will be proved wrong 10 years from now.

like I said I do believe both wild and hatchery fish can coexist the bio's just need to find the right formula.

I have a question about some of the facts I see on here. one being people stating that hatchery fish off spring dont survive well if at all when they spawn in the wild.

my thought is that it would be mighty hard to get numbers like that unless you blocked off a whole watershed and took dna samples of every returning fish that run year. I guess I am not seeing how they could even come up with the idea that the smolts do not survive. I ask this because here we have the mckenzie river it is stocked with spring chinook and steelhead smolts. the old timers say that there was historicaly never steelhead in that watershed so they would rather see them removed. if there were never any wild steelhead in that system and hatchery fish off spring do not survive why is there a self sustaining population of wild steelhead above the highest hatchery? they are considered wild and we are not allowed to retain them on that system if they are not clipped. there has to be a fairly good survival of smolts to start a run of wild fish in a river that never had steelhead historicaly.

It would be like allowing our country to have open immigration and giving the new immigrants immediate citizenship AND public assitance

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">no offense auntym I think that already has been happening for years

when I started my last thread about the anti hatchery stance I did not intend for it to turn out the way it did and be closed. I am sorry for that.

I value everyones opinion and thought that a lot of good information was being posted and I learned alot on both sides of the issue.

I hope that this thread can continue and people will share their veiws, maybe people on both sides of the issue can learn something

[crabbait]

I agree, Quasi. Sharing opinions and information is what ifish is about.

I am certain that this thread will be more civil than the last.

Originally posted by AuntyM:


How is it that a wild fish is NOT displaced by a hatchery fish? The hatchery fish have been bred to be unfair competition for the wild fish.

The wild fish may be outnumbered five to one. The hatchery fish has been fed "super" food and is older and larger. He is eating food that will no longer be available for the wild fish. He is likely even using wild fish fry as part of his food source. This will occur throughout the life cycle. This hatchery fish is a steelhead. He is impacting all wild steelhead and every wild salmon species present in river X. The larger, bigger hatchery fish will take the best cover and hold his territory by force. The fish outmigrate and then return to spawn. Here we see hatchery fish competing for room on the spawning beds. We know even if their attempts are successful, their offspring won't likely make it back.

It would be like allowing our country to have open immigration and giving the new immigrants immediate citizenship AND public assitance AND huge capital AND your home and then wondering why you don't have a job and are homeless.

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">Isn't this almost the exact same arguement that Washington Trout was trying to make last year? The only difference was they were talking about salmon weren't they?
Anyway Marsha you bring up very valid points and I too am just learning about hatchery impact on wild fish.
As I've said many times before if there is to be harvest opportunites for the tag buying public and obviously the wild fish populations cannot sustain C&K then there has to be fish for the public to harvest. The broodstock programs are the way to go if we are to have hatchery fish in the river.They have a smaller impact on wild fish and are not out of basin eggs like we see on the north coast. I think the way hatcheries are run has come under close scrutiny in the recent past and rightly so but we have become so overly dependent on hatcheries that now we can't live without them. While we were getting "addicted" to hatchery fish we neglected alot of wild fish habitat and those runs declined.Some argue that we are ready for a limited C&K on native fish on the north coast. I certainly hope this does not happen soon.
In talking to an area fish biologist who fished with me yesterday on the Wilson. The ODFW is not ready to support any C&K harvest for wild steelhead on the north coast at this time.
So stay tuned because this will surely come up again.

[AuntyM]

Quasi,

I think we may be closer to the same mindset than it first appears. I am not against hatchery fish... If I were, I'd get thrown out of the house for buying a sled and spending a few thousand dollars of my hubby's money on gear. :grin:

What I have a problem with, is that I think commercial fishermen and tribes see the wild fish as an obstruction to profit and I think their preference is to forget about saving wild fish and concentrate on MORE hatchery production. When the Pacific Legal Foundation jumps in and trys to force us to accept hatchery fish as wild, we have a mixture that could very well interfere with science's progress.

Because of Long Live The Kings work, I am convinced it's possible to have hatchery fish with a very low impact on wild fish. I think all sport fishers, if they had a choice, would like to fish for healthy wild fish stocks and get to consume them.

[Amerman]

Man the last post thread got nasty. I think we all can agree that the best thing we could do for the wild fish would be to quit fishing on all the rivers. Quit fishing in the ocean (this means from all areas--sports-fishing, foreign, commercial), stop all hatchery planting and production, and stop all the logging, farming, remove all electricity-generating and irrigation dams and stopping any other forms of pollution or landed degradation. We obviously know what is the best thing we can do for the wild fish. As some one said we could all move out of Oregon and let it regrow for 40 years back to its wild state.

But somehow we need to balance man's interaction and the survival of the wild fish. I see that all you anti-hatchery folks (I only use that term because it was used in these threads) are great at pointing out the mistakes from the past, and there obviously have been many (I could add some you guys have missed). But what do any of you see for the future? What solutions do you see for a way to continue to build towards the future. How can we rebuild the wild runs of fish and continue some harvest of fish (be that commercial, sports or whatever you want to outline) because if there is no one who can enjoy fishing for these fish, who will be there to throw their money and support to these fish? How can we do this while still using electricity, paper and wood to build our houses and such. I see how many are good at crying about the past, but show me some light to the future. Please just outline how you envision this should go in the future rather than whining about the past. But BTBW, I would love to see your future dreams as to how to make this all grow in the future. I have seen posts where you call for a wild winter steelhead harvest on streams like the Nestucca. How will these fish continue to rebound, (while you allow 2000 wild steelhead a year to be killed), how will you fund it, and how will you keep the interest and support of fisherman? Where do you see all this going? How will you make so much change that we can afford to kill 2000 wild steelhead a year and still have them strive and flourish? Don't get me wrong. I am not saying any of you are wrong with what you have pointed out, or even your takes on the situation at hand. I just hope to learn more from your insight as to what to do in the future. I am not attacking anyone here. I am just asking if any of you have a big picture for the future? Give me a 20 year plan (or dream).

The way I see it, many of us have sat on the side and said look at all the mistakes we have made in the past. Stop now before we make more. And some of us have said look at all the mistakes we have made. Let's try again and learn from these mistake and do it again but right this time. We know what horrible things have happened because of out-of-basin hatchery stock, and we have fought to change many streams to in-basin stock. I feel that we have looked at lots of our past mistakes and said how can we change them. I feel that projects like the broodstock programs are the best alternatives I have heard so far given that we want to continue to live in Oregon with electricity, paper, food, drive our cars and boats, fish the streams and eat fish now and then. I know that any hatchery plan just like any kinds of fishing or wild harvest will have a negative impact on the wild fish. I am just hoping this has the least impact. If you have a better plan, I would love to hear it but I can only hear so many times arguments about or past mistakes without any hopeful solutions for the future.

My 20 year dream for winter steelhead. Do individual hatchery enhancements on each stream we feel it is needed on, stopping the out-of-basin stock in all streams and replacing them with in-basin hatchery broodstock. This way we can reduce the harmful effects of out-of-basin stocks, but continue to educate and peek the sportsfishing interest, so that we have more voice and more funding to do stream enhancments, wild fish education, hatchery plan monitoring and wild run monitoring (to see if what we are doing is working and change that which is not) and educate people on the importance of the wild fish, why we need them and how to maintain them. To maintain a catch and release only policy on wild fish even once they show stronger returns.

Just my .02

[drano100]

AuntyM
Wild fish smolt spend much more time in fresh water then hatchery smolt and size is not always the determining factor here. The wild fish is lets say a lot more street smart then the hatchery smolt. wild fish have had to compete for food has a better understanding of predotors and how to aviod them and so on. Hatchery fish are not bigger and stroger than wild fish when they return they are smaller and not nearly as strong. When you catch a hatchery fish can you tell the difference between a wild fish before you ever see the fish I can, and I think most of us that have been fishing for a while can. It is a much different fight. Hatchery fish do compete with wild fish, they do spawn with wild fish, and they do cause problems for wild fish but overall the effect is pretty small compared too other factors (ie habitat loss, dams, irregation, logging, over fishing, polution both to the rivers and ocean.
As far as the tribes not wanting wild fish because they see them obstruction to profit there was a thread here last week where the tribes did not want to clip their hatchery fish because more would be released by sport and comm. fishermen to return to their nets so I can't see why you would think they were anti-wild.
I like scott's dream plan we can't live the lifestyles we do and and think we can restore wild stocks the the #'s they were 100 years ago, it just woun't work. :depressed: :depressed:

[SHLEPROCK]

Amerman
I'll share my views.
My opinions are not from scientic findings, They are just opinions :smile:
First is the preasure from overharvest.
I see it like supply and demand, The more fish that are available the more we will harvest. If we didn't have hatcheries mass producing fish the number of people commercial and sport would decrease. After all who enjoys getting skunked time and time again.
It has all became commercial in some sense. So now it seems like one big fish farm.
Kind of nice isn't it. but I bet that if a person could total up the cost over the years the dollars spent would be staggering. One thing about it is that we that fish are collecting the benefits but those that don't still must pay in some round about way.
My long term concerns on hatchery fish are if they cut funding for the reason of Hatchery vs Wild fish we will be faced with restrictions and all the fish may be reclassified as ESA fish in a short time and restrictions that govern the Dams and Timberlands may be lifted [img]graemlins/1zhelp.gif[/img]

[AuntyM]

Drano100,

tribes did not want to clip their hatchery fish because more would be released by sport and comm. fishermen to return to their nets so I can't see why you would think they were anti-wild.

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">They are not entitled to more than 50% so their reasons to not clip are pretty lame. They also blackmailed their way into a much higher 13% impact quota for the springer fishery. They are harvesting a much higher percentage (6 times higher) of ESA listed fish than sport and the commercial fleet combined.

That basically tells you they don't care about wild fish. They care about harvest. They can not tell if an unclipped fish is wild or hatchery unclipped in the nets.

The ESA applies to them as well as everyone else. The reason they have been able to get away with not clipping and having much larger impacts than the rest of us have is because of their threat to sue over the dams.

If the tribes cared about wild fish, the would mark theirs at 100% and find a way to harvest with less impact.

As far as interaction between wild and hatchery, we are over simplifying. The interactions are far more complicated. Suffice it to say, it IS possible that every hatchery fish in a system may be displacing several wild fish because of the superior size advantage and predation. Think of the domino effect this could have been having on wild fish for 10 or 12 decades. When a run is smaller than predicted, we release more hatchery fish to compensate.

I am well aware of the differences between the two when they return. The problem arises when the hatchery fish mate with wild fish. You basically lose one spawning event every time that happens.

Here is a quote from WSC's Todd Ripley:

regarding hatchery fish returns, they average about 3% return rate. That means if 100,000 fish are released from a hatchery, 3,000 fish will return, on average. If a wild run produced 100,000 smolts, it would return more like 9,000 to 14,000 adults.

The reason that there are more hatchery fish is that they don't plant 10,000...they plant 300,000, or 1,000,000. Even with very low return rates that adds up to a lot of fish.

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">We need the wild fish and we need the hatchery fish. We just need to find a better way to have our cake and eat it too.

I don't want to see the 9th Circuit Court, commercial fishermen or tribes prevent us from having our cake.

[Quasimodo the fish killer]

I just dont get some of the science and theroys.

how would they know how many wild smolts there were to begain with to know they have a much higher return rate?

I have to say once again unless they blocked up a watershed and counted every single smolt that went out and every single adult that came in they would have no clue if wild fish have a better survival rate. it is purely speculation.

a lot of the science that is used in studies and in theroys is just a guess.

lets take carcass counts for instance they float down a river or creek or walk it. they look for carcass's hanging in the trees and on the banks. thats all good but it doesnt take into consideration how many carcasses got washed out in the high water or how many are on the bottom of the stream bed. now they have to come up with some magical formula to take into account how many they didnt see and add that to what they did see to get there run size figures. those carcasses may or may not have been there. there is no way of knowing and determining the overall size of a run with out guessing and to me thats a major flaw. they make decisions based on their run size speculations.

I do not think there is any way to know for sure that hatchery fish have a negative impact on wild fish unless you have a watershed that is 100% healthy and has enough food to feed all the fish that are in the system.

ok lets say you have a perfect watershed there is enough food shade spawning beds to support 300,000 smolts but you know that there is only 100,000 wild smolts in the system. if you placed an aditional 100,000 hatchery smolts into the system would those hatchery smolts have a negative impact still? there would be ample feed so they hatchery smolts wouldnt have to canabalize on the wild smolts there would be ample spawning beds so they wouldnt need to chase the wild smolts off their reds to spawn there would be plenty of shade to keep the water cool and help the fish hide from predators. and so on in that situation you could tell 100% if the hatchery fish were impacting the wild fish in a negative manor but unless you have a perfect system with an abundance of every thing that amount of smolts needs to survive you can not know if hatchery fish are detrimental to the health of wild runs.

thats what I was trying to get thru to BTBW the science that he and other anti hatchery people are using is flawed because they are studies done on watersheds that are a far cry from healthy.

I do not think closing hatcheries is going to fix the problem. all it will do is put people out of jobs and make us all lose a way of life that we enjoy.

I think the key is restoring the watersheds so that they can easily support the number of smolts that pass thru them. then I believe you will see hatchey fish and wild fish living in harmony just like one big old hippy commune :grin:

Quasi

.

[AuntyM]

Quasi,

ARGGGHHHH! No closing of hatcheries talk out of me!

The big bully hatchery smolt is chasing the poor little wild fry. Oh wait! There are 5 or 6 big bully hatchery smolts to that 1 poor little fry. Figure the odds. :grin:

Now what we need to do, is to figure out how to keep the bully hatchery smolt from picking on the little fry and taking away his lunch money. Getting rid of the big bully is not the answer I want to hear. Maybe the hatchery bus should arrive earlier or later? Drop them off at a differnt spot?

It's not a question of IF hatcheries have a negative impact. It's what can we do to minimize the impact. :smile:

[Todd]

Quasi,

my thought is that it would be mighty hard to get numbers like that unless you blocked off a whole watershed and took dna samples of every returning fish that run year. I guess I am not seeing how they could even come up with the idea that the smolts do not survive.

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">This is exactly what Mark Chilcote's study on the Kalama River did. As fish came to the falls at the upper hatchery, all that were passed above the falls were counted as wild or hatchery, and DNA tested.

They knew exactly how many fish of both hatchery and wild stocks were above the falls.

They then sampled the smolts coming back down, counting how many were wild or hatchery, or wild/hatchery crosses.

Due to the DNA testing of the original adults, they could even tell you that which adults the smolt came from (Wild Fish #23 and Wild Fish #54, for example).

From this data they were able to tell what percentage of wild fish spawned with hatchery fish, what percentage of hatchery fish spawned together, and what percentage of wild fish spawned together.

They discovered that all three crosses produced a high amount of smolts per spawning pair.

When those smolts returned later as adults, they were sampled again.

Of the smolts that left after the beginning of the study, virtually none of the returning adults were of the HxH variety, a few were HxW crosses, and almost all the adults returning were WxW crosses.

While that is just one river, it has been observed to follow similar patterns most everywhere else.

As always, though, there will be exceptions...there are a few rivers around here that have no "native" summer runs, but do have "wild" ones now, i.e., naturally reproducing offspring of hatchery fish.

Nowhere has this, to my knowledge, happened with winter runs. Not to say it hasn't, but I haven't heard of it before.

Fish on...

Todd

[corkyking]

You know, a farmer who owns a large farm will practice good stewardship, not necessarily because he can see the advantage in doing so but, because he has seen or experienced the disaster that awaits those who do not.

Let's say he raises wheat. He knows that he will harvest some fields this year and some he will let lie fallow. Approximately 2/3 will lie fallow because he knows that if he harvests as much as he can from all fields production will soon fall off and eventually the fields will not yeild at all. He'll take just as good care of the fallow fields as the producing ones, maybe better. In the next years he will rotate through all his fields working toward the best return for his investment. He wont say that this wheat or that wheat is better because it just is. He grows a particular type because it gives the best return. If he couldn't get a meaningful return then he would let everything go to seed and abandon the farm.

It should be the same for the fish. If those of us who pay the freight can't get a reasonable return we should abandon the project and move on to something that does.

If we decide that we want to have long term returns of fish we should do the same as that farmer. Close rivers or river systems for at least one growing cycle and then rotate through.
We should plant all of the rivers every year and improve habitat on the rivers being fished so that the closed rivers can "rest". Eventually there will be no need for the hatchery system we have now.

Like the farmer you and I are the only ones investing in the resource. The tribes, the commercials, the fisheries employees and the consuming public are reaping the vast percentage of our committment to these fish and the outdoor lifestyle. Like the farmer they want their "bread" and don't care a lick if the farmer goes broke in the bargain.

[MillerTime]

I think that Drano made a very valid point about some of the findings on behavior of hatchery reared fish.
The mortality rate of recently released hatchery reared fish is extremely high in comparison to wild fish. Much of this is there inability to find food as easily as it had been for them in the hatchery. (A little easier when its getting fed to you then when you have to find it yourself.) They are also more prone to predation due to not having evolved with that environment, in a way, they are genetically predisposed to getting caught by whatever is walking (or flying or swimming) by.
Also, in regards to the ESA, I may be incorrect but I do believe that Treaty Rights given to most Native American Nations give them special rights above some current legislation. Thats not to say that they can do whatever they want, but that they already have an agreement. I may be mistaken though.
Really though, I think that the most important strand that I saw mentioned in almost every reply was that of the envionmental health of the area. Too many people, not interested in anything but the current events of robberies and police chases, do not understand the total human impact on an environment. To make any situation better in fisheries I think that general public, not just land users, need to be more well informed. Granted, there are groups like Salmon Watch out there who try, but could do more with more support. I hope I was not the only one who read what Jennie had to say on the opening page on March 6th. I think we could all learn from that and become more active in restorition oriented activities.

[Salmonator]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by AuntyM:
When a run is smaller than predicted, we release more hatchery fish to compensate.

I don't understand this. When they release smolts you have two to 4 years before returns. You're saying they are predicting a smaller run out this far? Releasing more smolts during a low return year won't do a whole lot for that years run.


Here is a quote from WSC's Todd Ripley:

regarding hatchery fish returns, they average about 3% return rate. That means if 100,000 fish are released from a hatchery, 3,000 fish will return, on average. If a wild run produced 100,000 smolts, it would return more like 9,000 to 14,000 adults.

The reason that there are more hatchery fish is that they don't plant 10,000...they plant 300,000, or 1,000,000. Even with very low return rates that adds up to a lot of fish.

I hope we're not quoting more outdated info to argue today's hatchery practices. I think that if you were to research modern broodstock numbers your return rate would be closer to the 9 to 14% you provided above for native returns which means smaller smolt releases and less river/estuary competition.


We need the wild fish and we need the hatchery fish. We just need to find a better way to have our cake and eat it too.

That last statement has been made over and over again for the last week or so. ODFW trying a way that they believe would be better. I wish those that ask for something more would enlighten us as to what we need to do. Scott made a big list of options above, but none of them look like anything we can or want to consider... Joe

[ 03-07-2004, 07:14 PM: Message edited by: Salmonator ]

[AuntyM]

Salmonator,

I was keeping it simple to make my point. There is more than enough data exists that as we have suffered declines, the answer has often been to plant MORE hatchery fish. It may have been better to plant less. I used a yearly example just so we don't lose track of that point.

The fewer wild fish that return, spawn and die, the less nutrients are left to maintain what was. It's a viscious circle, that is worsened by the presence of hatchery fish.

I'd be willing to bet that most anything I quote from Todd, (Hi Todd, glad to have you jump in!) is not going to be out dated.

Millertime,

I think there are several programs currently applicable to your statement. It is possible to raise hatchery fish to smolt size without sticking them in a concrete pond and tossing some food in. Natural holding ponds with natural cover and irregular feeding can mimic much that can teach broodstock fish to survive predators and learn to seek other food sources.

We still need to address predation and competition though. How can we do that? That's what we need to find out.

We as a group HAVE to fend off attacks on the ESA and wild fish until science has those answers. Without wild fish, you have no broodstock to draw from.

[SHLEPROCK]

http://www.pacificlegal.org/

Originally posted by AuntyM:
We as a group HAVE to fend off attacks on the ESA and wild fish until science has those answers. Without wild fish, you have no broodstock to draw from.

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">[img]graemlins/applause.gif[/img] Exactly! Visionary groups like the Wild Steelhead Coalition are leading the way in this and I'm glad to support them

[Salmonator]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by AuntyM:

The fewer wild fish that return, spawn and die, the less nutrients are left to maintain what was. It's a viscious circle, that is worsened by the presence of hatchery fish.


The need for nates to return and spawn is obvious, but do you have some data that shows dead hatchery fish to be less nutritious than nates? :grin:

I'd be willing to bet that most anything I quote from Todd, (Hi Todd, glad to have you jump in!) is not going to be out dated.

I'd put a quart of eggs on it [img]graemlins/dork.gif[/img]


We as a group HAVE to fend off attacks on the ESA and wild fish until science has those answers. Without wild fish, you have no broodstock to draw from.

That is a very good point, but what exactly is SCIENCE doing to provide us with hatchery fish? You and I both are fans of fish to take home right? All science is doing (and vaguely at that) is compiling the data collected from the results of ODFW programs. Is this not correct? If ODFW sat on thier hands and waited for "science" to call and tell them how they can effectivley have hatchery fish co-exist with native fish with ZERO harm to the nates, how long do you think that ODFW would be waiting for that call?

The ONLY option to find out if hatchery fish are the worst of many threats to nates would be to eliminate hatchery fish completely and hope that we might get to fish for winter steelhead again in our lifetime. Oh well, there's always bowling...

[ 03-07-2004, 08:55 PM: Message edited by: Salmonator ]

[Sir Fishalot]

Now what we need to do, is to figure out how to keep the bully hatchery smolt from picking on the little fry and taking away his lunch money. Getting rid of the big bully is not the answer I want to hear.

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">One way of doing that would be to separate the "bully hatchery smolts" from the "little native fry". What I mean is to put in place a small dam or weir with a fish trap on a river such as they do on the Mckenzie. On the Mckenzie they don't let the hatchery fish go above the small dam, and their is a lot of prime habitat for the natives above that point. It's kind of like a VIP (or should I say VIF :grin: ) section for natives only.

[Ty]

Whew..... Glad u all are sticking to this topic and hope things stay civil.... I know I will try to do that on at least my part...

U all have some great points and this topic to me it is great... Unfortunatley there is no "hard" science and "hard "facts" in fisheries..

We are all learning.. and as we learn things change.. and as they change we are changing things too... So the harsh reality is we are trying to use the "best" science currently available in fisheries management... but... by the time the science is shared it is outdated..

The learning curve is sharp... The reality is that hatchery fish NO DOUBT have a negative effect on the existing wild populations they interact with... There very may well be some posotive effects too (very few)...

I think the broodstock programs on the coast are great... and they are very problemantic too...

They are great for the fisherman and they seem to provide significantly better product to the catch..

They suck because of the notoriety and exposure they rivers w/ these programs recieve seems to significantly increase the fishing pressure on these systems. They also give people a "false" sence of improvement... Nobody knows if this is better or worste then older hatchery practices as far as the impact these fish have on wild fish? They also make a fish with a very complex life history have a fairly simple stream lined life history that may leave them in confused... and still unfit due to being raised in such a controlled environment and not fit to reproduce in the wild..

I fished the coast tdy and saw Willamette River Outlaw catch this large Wild Broodstock hen!


Nice Hatchery hen!!!!


This fish has significant erosion on the lower caudal and anal fins.... strongly suggesting spawining previoulsy somewhere other than the hatchery...


So the biologist fights the fisherman inside of me...torn between catching fish and doing the "right" thing biologically........

[ 03-07-2004, 11:31 PM: Message edited by: Ty ]

[Amerman]

Ty

One quick question about the fish you posted. How is it a Wild Broodstock hen? It has an adipose, Are you saying it was wild or a broodstock fish?
I would guess that the erosion on its tail indicated it did some digging not spawning.

[Ty]

Scott

The fish WRO caught was a right maxillary clip...

The fin erosion has healed and is not recent... it is from a recent spawning event....

The rest of the pictures w/ the max clip will be on another post.........

[Salmonator]

She doesn't have a swollen vent and the belly isn't exactly sucked in. I had to release a beautiful max clipped hen a few weeks back. Still had most of the adipose. I wish they would change that reg [img]graemlins/berry.gif[/img]

[Ty]

Agreed Salminator...

A hatchery fish is a....hatchery fish......Any hatchery marking should warrant retention!

[sparkleboy]

I ran into Grant Scheele one day on a river in Oregon and he had a non-adipose fin clipped steelhead which had a deformed maxillarly, making it look like it was max-clipped, but it in fact was only a deformity. The bone was formed inside the fishes mouth, instead of outside. Very weird looking, but it also had a big adipose, so it was obvious the fish was a native.
But yeah, if the fish has an obvious max clip AND a mostly removed adipose, you should be able to keep it.

Edit - he had the fish for a broodstock program, and had not killed it for retention.
Boy, that was almost really bad.

[ 03-07-2004, 11:22 PM: Message edited by: sparkleboy ]

[eyeFISH]

Not trying to flame anyone here, but that maxillary "clip" (all by itself) is a pretty weak piece of evidence as a marker for a hatchery fish. There are lots of rivers where wild smolts are caught by hook and line. In the process of releasing them, they often twist violently while trying to extract the hook, with the maxillary plate often being torn off. This type of mouth damage is the most common deformity seen in trout fisheries where there is a lot of C&R.

[weekend warrior]

Nicely said Scott. There is no perfect solution. Because like you said the only ideal situation would be to leave Oregon alone for 40yrs. and let nature take it's course.
This is a very complicated and emotional topic for alot of people because people make a living off sportfishing.
Hope everyone keeps this civil, remember were all adults and we all are free to voice are own opinions.

[Quasimodo the fish killer]

I still have a feeling that hatchery smolts wouldnt feed on wild smolts if there were ample foos sources in the river to support both varieties. I know there is no way for ODFW to know how much available feed there is in a river and they do the best they can to lessen the impact on wild fish by limiting the number of smolts they release into a system.

one thought about the study todd cited

hatchery smolts are kept in pins or tanks and their feed is thrown in on the surface they feed from the surface my comon sense is tellin me that the fish collectors that koffler builds arent getting a true sampeling of the smolts on out migration.

here is my reasoning hatchery fish are from day one trained to wait for food to drop from the sky so they tend to stick in the upper levels of the river waiting for more food , but wild fish most likely feed from all different levels in the river not just the surface so you would think that more hatchery fish would get scooped up by the smolt collectors then wild just because they have the learned behavior of sticking near the surface. I have seen big black balls of smolts swimming around on the surface of pools days after they were released into the river. I have also watched them and seen that any thing that causes a disturbance to the surface of the water gets swarmed on so it is quite possible that the hatchery smolts would get swept up in the smolt collectors a lot more frequently then wild smolts would.

this is a huge subject and I am learnig lots here. this is how these topics should work on here instead of turning into a brawl like my thread did. [img]graemlins/applause.gif[/img]

Quasi

.

[Amerman]

Ty

I love your posts on ifish and think you are very knowledgeable, but I think you made a mistake this time. In Oregon you are required to release any steelhead that has an adipose regardless of other clips ( unless you are on a river where it is legal to retain wild fish). It looks to me when blowing up the pic. that the max fin is tucked under the upper jaw and has a ragged torn look on the lower jaw ( when clipped they don't look torn and jagged). This would indicate to me that this fish was hooked as a young fish, probably a smolt, and had its max fin ripped off (and was in fact a wild fish). The size of eggs and wear on its tail would indictate also that this fish ws trying to spawn or getting ready too. Did you think this fish spawned earlier this winter, or are you saying it spawned in winters before? The wear to me looks like it was digging a little the day it was caught. I have seen this many times.

Another point is that more than likely the river you are fishing if it has broodstock fish they are clipped left max. Or I think the one( or two river) that are right max the fish would be 2 years old ( and much smaller than this).

[AuntyM]

Grasshopper (Quasi),

Have I got a website for you!
Wild Salmon Rearing and Habitat

Both the Lilliwaup and Wishkah projects seem to be doing their job. The ESA listed summer runs are rebounding due to their efforts.

[Quasimodo the fish killer]

Hey sir fishalot good to see another fellow eugenian on here well yes they do protect them above leaburg dam but the poblem is that those nates came from hatchey stock to begain with.

as far as I know there was never a resident steelhead run on the mckenzie river untill they were hatchery introduced. I dont know for sure I am not that old to remember back when there were no steelhead on it lol But I have heard that over and over though by the mckenzie flyfishers and by other groups that watch dog the mckenzie.


if that is the case and all the nates on the mckenzie came from hatchery smolts why are we protecting them ? also hatchery adults must have a fairly good sucess rate at spawning and their smolt survival is better then some would let on to create a wild run where one never existed.

I dont remember the numbers but 1500 keeps popping into my head as the count of steelhead that pass over the dam and are wild.

this topic is so huge and I have so many questions on it someone slap me if I get off track :grin:

Quasi

.

[Ty]

See nothin illegal here.... No comment on the river fished, however adipose intact was legal on this river.....

Scott,

The erosion on the tail was healed and not fresh... You could tell it had rehealed and the last 2-4 fin rays on the caudal where nearly fused together. I have seen amny dolly varden and whitefish in alaska and landlocked rainbows and browns in montana with fin erosion that is rehealed.

BTW.. appeared to be as much of a maxillary clip as I have seen this season and I have seen many.. There was no reminants of the max bone inside the mouth. Could have been a hooking injurary when the fish was a smolt.. I am not familiar with the any max clips on the south coast. [img]graemlins/1zhelp.gif[/img]


I will post some other fish to illistrate the differences.....