How did they come up with these numbers?

Did they divide the hatchery budget by the number of fish spawned?

Bull

[wetaline]

We better start releasing those hatchery fish so that they can get back to the hatchery for counting

I thought the point of a hatchery was allow for harvest...

I really hope someone calculated the *** amount of fish that were harvested by gill nets, foreign nets, sportsman, seals, hitting their heads on damns etc etc.... into the cost/fish ...

[Hogmaster]

It is soooo sad the way they write these things and put headlines on.

They talk around it but the fact is that if the hatchery is doing a good job there will be a high cost for returned fish because few should return!!!!!!!!

It really is a meaningless number. A more meaningful number would be to calculate how many fish were CAUGHT as well as return to the hatchery. Commercial and sport.

Unfortunately to the uninformed non-fishermen (like the employee I just talked to about this over lunch). they read the headlines and skim the story and think that hatchery fish are way too expensive. Geez, it is easy to think (wrongly) those guys are catching $500 salmon????

[GutshotApe]

Keta - No, essentially they divided the budgeted cost by the number of returning adults. What is missing is an accounting of the number of fish caught in commercial and sport fisheries. Adding that figure to the returning adults would yield a more accureate number.

Either way, this report sounds like bad news for hatchery supporters.

[Jsail]

This is a good report!

State Sen. Joan Dukes, D-Svensen, said closing any hatcheries would be difficult because they are enormously popular with anglers. "Every time hatcheries have been put on the chopping block there's an enormous outcry," she said

Keep up the good work with the letters and phone calls!

[Wet_Willy]

The other issue that skews those figures is that some hatcheries raise fish for release in different rivers...Those fish obviously aren't going back to the hatchery they came from, but I'll bet they aren't factored out.

Need to be sure the "public outcry" continues on this stuff!

Bill

[SlimPickens]

here's the actual report so you can see the numbers.

http://www.sos.state.or.us/audits/au...ts/2002-39.pdf

[blackdog]

I see they didn't bother to calculate what the $$ amount each one of these fish brought into the communities was. Poorly painted picture.

[corrirod]

That is a horrible article to print! What #$@!* decided to print that. Perhaps a closet PETA member? How can that be an accurate number based on their calculation method?

Anyone that doesn't fish, and unfortunately that's the majority of people, would be outraged to see those numbers. We, the sportfishermen, now have an even higher mountain to climb to keep these hatcheries open.

[Straydog]

This is the second aritcle of late that I am aware of that the Oregonian has published a one sided article articulating the cost of hatchery fish.

Sure seems as if they are setting the stage for some serious arse covering for the benefit of the upcoming legislative session.

I hope everyone on this board writes a letter to the editor asking why there is not accompanying information in regards to the economic benefit of these same hatcheries.

On the other hand, this also makes for good argument when asking for tough choices in regards to habitat of naturally reproducing fish........ dosen't it make sense to produce as many fish as possible naturally there-by reducing the costs of hatchery production?

[ 11-12-2002, 06:10 PM: Message edited by: Straydog ]

[6horsekicker]

Great! that means that It only cost me $2,000 this year to catch $1500 worth of fall fish Looks like I almost got my money worth :grin:

[King13fisher]

At the bottom of the story is the e-mail address of the author John Brinckman it is jbrinckman@oregonlive.com
Also in the feedback section there is the e-mail address of the editor of the Oregon live site. kcosgrov@oregonlive.com.

Maybe a few thousand e-mails, from ifishers, to these guys will voice our opinion of their "stat laced" article.

[Miss B Haven]

Ha - 6horse- I love it! I'm with ya. Gotta keep the local economy going though. Without those hatcheries I'll probably have to learn Spanish and move South were the fish still grow naturally. OF course I'd do that in a heart beat if I could afford it, hatcheries or not.
I'd like to hear Bill M's take on this story and the headline. I don't really think the story or the audit was supposed to tell us the economic value of raising catchable fish. I believe the audit was to get info to the managers. I believe they are plenty bright to use the data to improve the hatcheries and cut cost to do it. The headline however I agree would tend to mislead the uniformed. :depressed:

[Streetwalker]

After reading this incredibly short sighted & irresponsible assesment I emailed both the editor & the writer & I encourage others to do so. Read the article & see that sport, commercially harvested & naturally spawning hatchery fish are not accounted for in the cost, this would make a huge difference!! Aren't we encouraged to harvest hatchery fish? I smell an agenda here!

[ 11-12-2002, 07:36 PM: Message edited by: Streetwalker ]

[skein]

When something valuable is being taken away, it is in the taker's best interest to discredit it first - at least in the eyes of the majority. There are those who want to show that fish and restoration are horribly expensive and that it would be in everybody's interest to not have to do that anymore. After all, those $500 fish are costing *everybody* not just the sportfishermen (the only harvesters worth mentioning).

Follow the money! Who stands to gain if the rules are relaxed? The power company? Stockholders somewhere? The CEO who jerks around the bottom line? Can they shut down the fish ladders and escapement screens? Not yet, but they've got it in their sights. Discrediting hatcheries is not the end-all. It's the toe in the door.

They're trying to paint us into the same corner they used for the Klamath farmers; those folks who became the media's whipping boys (while the water headed to Sacramento via the Trinity). Where do you suppose they want to ship our electricity? How could they produce it cheaper - and make more profit? Ease restrictions. To do that they need a scapegoat.

I'll make my calls and send my emails. We're not ready to roll over and play dead just yet! Just don't lose sight of who the real enemy is!

Skein

[Joe]

The biggest problem with these numbers is that the hatcheries are not getting credit for the fish they raise. These numbers are only based on fin clipped or tagged fish that return to the hatcheries in question. Many stocks of fish are not (or only recently became) fin clipped. Not to mention all the fish being caught by anglers.

When was the last time a creel census person checked your catch? I've hardly ever been checked at the boat ramp.

The actual returns are many times more than what is being reported. Unfortunatly the resources are not available to measure most returns.

The anti-fish people are behind this story! They want to twist reality as far as they can while they have a chance at closing some hatcheries. The sad truth is that there are a bunch of individuals out there that don't want us to be able to catch fish to eat! There is even one on IFISH who will probably be showing up here in a while.

[ 11-12-2002, 09:34 PM: Message edited by: Joe ]

[Hogmaster]

King13fisher

I got a bounce back whe I tried to cut and paste your address for Mr. Brinckman so I got this one off the story and used it to send the email below.

jbrinckman@news.oregonian.com

I cc'd the editor with your oregon live address and that seemed to go through...

Here is what I wrote. I only serve it up as maybe a thought stimulator for those of you who may be thinking about but haven't written. This is simply bad journalism and it should be pointed out!

__________________________________________________ _______________________

I have never written to the Oregonian before but I feel that the headline and slant to this story was incredibly inaccurate and irresponsible.

The story glosses over the fact that there actually SHOULD be a high cost per returning fish, since ideally many would fish survive to adulthood but ultimately be caught by commercial and sport fishermen prior to returning to the hatcheries. The hatcheries only need enough fish returning to ensure that the gene pool is appropriately diluted and no more.

To not make the fundamental argument that the actual cost per fish produced by hatcheries that benefit people as opposed to just those returning causes many non-fisher people who look at the headline and skim or skip the story to believe that the cost of EVERY hatchery fish is up to and over $500 apiece. How many did not read the story to find out that the hatchery manager at the most expensive hatchery was quoted to say they send fish to areas that resulted in runs of fish returning to those areas but not the hatchery? Many. I personally spoke with two who work for me at lunch today. Both of them believed that hatchery fish cost $500. That is poor journalism, bordering on propaganda, in my view.

I am trying to understand the motivation for the "spin" on the story. Please do not suggest you were only presenting the findings of the report. The report is only measuring one component of hatchery operations. You have raised the ire of many sportsmen that read your newspaper and I believe you should consider your headlines a bit more carefully in the future.

Thank you for your consideration and I welcome a response.
__________________________________________________ ___________________

If you write them be sure to include your name address and phone number...

[GutshotApe]

Hogmaster - Good letter. I agree that Brinkman's piece was one-sided. I've heard that one of The Oregonian's editors is an OregonTrout member and is very much pro-wild fish and anti-hatchery. Could editorial opinion spill over into the news dept? Not a chance......................and if you believe that, I've got this really nice bridge on I-5 across the Columbia I'd like to sell you!

[skein]

Hogmaster,

Good letter but there's two things I'd like to add. One, the report that piece was based on is five years old. FIVE YEARS! Since then we've had a couple of years that would - or should - make a big difference in return on investment.

Two, I'm going to copy your letter, add a little anger, and send it to every company that had an ad on that page. I'm going to tell THEM what I think of the reporting THEY are supporting by their ad money, and I'm going to tell them I no longer can support their businesses as long as they allow their money to pay for bunko reporting. I might even ask them to convey that back to the paper. No kidding. The $1 I no longer give to the Oregonian means nothing. Five hundred torqued off fishermen asking a few retailers why they're supporting junk like that might just get back to the editorial staff.

There are two things that make our voices heard: votes and dollars. The elections are over, but shopping season ain't.

Skein

[Point-of-Sale Clerk]

We give you books… we send you to school… And you eat the teacher? :shocked:

Found at:
http://www.sos.state.or.us/audits/au...ts/2002-39.pdf

The very first paragraph of the report reads:

PURPOSE
“The objective of our audit was to assess the cost effectiveness of producing salmon at state funded hatcheries operated by the Department of Fish and Wildlife (department). To accomplish this, we compared the costs of producing fish (salmon and trout) at 13 hatcheries operated by the department that receive state funding. We also calculated the cost per adult salmon reported to have been caught or to have returned to freshwater for spawning . We limited this part of our review to selected Chinook salmon stocks released during state fiscal years 1994-1995, and selected Coho salmon stocks released during state fiscal years 1994-1997. These fish returned as adults during calendar years 1995-2000. The cost figures we report here are estimates based on available data.”

I was reluctant to post on this topic because in the end, somehow this will end up being my fault. :depressed:

The truly humorous part of this whole thing is I was going to complain to Mr. Brinkman that the data only included the State’s cost to raise the fish and did not include the money we spend marking and monitoring and CWT tagging and PIT tagging and transporting…

This is such a charged issue I think I will leave Mr. Brinkman alone. He’s all yours. [img]graemlins/eek13.gif[/img]

*** Clerk

[crabbait]

Their is no way that the return numbers can be accurately calculated. How many fish of each run were caught in the ocean? In Alaska and British Columbia? How many were caught locally and not reported?

Great letter, Hogmaster. I intend to send one myself and encourage all to voice their opinion to the e-mail addresses listed above. Lets make some noise, people!

In their defense, the Oregonian did include some caveats. Still, someone's agenda seems to be being served here. Let them hear that we are not amused and we are not asleep!

[Hogmaster]

*** -

You opened the box now didn't you?

First off, where in the article did the point in bold print get printed? Interesting in terms of irresponsible journalism.

Secondly, where in the article did it mention it only considered chinook salmon in the studies when a hatchery typically raises other species as well?

Thirdly, where does it mention in the article that the study data was dated? I suppose in the tiny print below the bar chart?

Your points may have merit, but the fact is the article was still not good journalism. And even the study uses what to calculate the number of returning adults???

Not buying in any way shape or form that the article was balanced...

Skien =

Good thoughts!

[Point-of-Sale Clerk]

Crabbait-Hogmaster

I have just completed reviewing the entire report and would like encourage you to read the report from beginning to end. All the points you have brought forth are addressed. Again, it can be found at the following link:

http://www.sos.state.or.us/audits/au...ts/2002-39.pdf

If anyone who wishes to read this report but does not have Adobe Acrobat you can obtain a hard copy by phoning 1-800-336-8218 (may not be free)

[Hogmaster]

*** =

Again, you are missing the point. The report is one thing, the Oregonian's choice in how they are reporting on it is another...

[Point-of-Sale Clerk]

Hogmaster

Perhaps you are right and I am missing the point. Tell you what, when Mr. Brinkman replies to you (he should, he always yells back at me :shocked: ) you post his reply here for us to read. OK

*** Clerk

[Hogmaster]

Fair enough, ***.

But back to my point for a moment. The audit report, in the first paragraph, states that the "cost to produce a pound of salmon or trout ... varied considerably among the 13 hatcheries, ranging from $4.08 .. to $9.09 per pound."

Didn't see the breakdown given that way did we?

Also, I did not see the Oregonian reporting that (from the report) "Department management noted that ocean conditions were particularly poor during our audit period, resulting in very low salmon survival rates. Management also stated that fishing restrictions in place during this period resulted in lower catch rates"

Oh, and here is part of the ODFW's official response to the audit (also a part of the report). "Since 1999 the survival rates have improved dramatically and are estimated to be on the order of 5 to 10 times better than those reflected in the report."

Gee, a $17 to $50 dollar salmon wouldn't make much of a headline now would it????

That is my point on the journalism...

[ 11-13-2002, 06:28 AM: Message edited by: Hogmaster ]

[djb]

I think Jonathan Brinckman is a spokesperson for Oregon Trout. They have some of his anti-hatchery articles bookmarked in their forumn. He wrote the Oregonian article on 5/12/02 under the heading " Hatchery Salmon Prove pricey". I think someone has a hidden agenda. I appreciated Lindsay Balls reply to the State Audits Division regarding their report. I believe he brought to their attention most of the discrepencys that I had with the report.

[corrirod]

After reading the document I need someone to help me get the math straight.

How can it cost the same $ per pound to rear 20,000 chinook as it does to rear 7000 coho? If the individual hatcheries simply take the total costs and divide by the total pounds, that is an inaccurate piece of data to use for this report. When looking at costs per species one has to go back to total costs, find the ratios of Chinook/Coho/trout, and use that percentage to divide the costs correctly.

If it costs the same to raise 20,000 chinook as it does to raise 7,000 coho then I say we let the coho run die and replace it with all chinook! [img]graemlins/berry.gif[/img]

Maybe this was already taken into account, someone please tell me, but if I'm right that will reduce these numbers substantially.

Regardless, the article in the Oregonian should've been posted in the Enquirer because it only told half the story. Most people, if they had read the response letter from ODFW, would've never printed this article.

[ 11-13-2002, 01:22 AM: Message edited by: corrirod ]

[TheRogue]

I suspect that the main reason the Salmon River $$ were so low is because it's a pretty closed environment. They can track pretty well just how many fish are caught, and whether they're clipped. They run fish checkers all day, 7 days a week. Yeah, they'll miss some, but I'll bet it is a MUCH more accurate numbers survey than any other hatchery stream in Oregon.

And, yes, it's pretty obvious who's bed Mr. Brinckman is in!! [img]graemlins/berry.gif[/img] [img]graemlins/berry.gif[/img]

TR

[ 11-13-2002, 06:09 AM: Message edited by: TheRogue ]

[Miss B Haven]

Corrirod - If I remeber the biology correctly, Chinook go out (or are released) very early in their life cycle (fry). Coho are yearling/fingerlings (as are Steelhead) before thye go out or are released. It cost the hatcheries a lot more to raise these fish and feed them over a full year than it does a Chinook.
There are exception to this in some strains (Kenai Hogs spend two years in fresh water and are keeper trout size when they migrate), but in general it's cheaper to raise Chinook. This is also the main reason that wild Chinook runs are healthier than Steelhead/Coho, they are less sensitive to instream conditions (low/warm summer flows, etc). I never thought about the Springers before, but they would be more expensive if the hatcheries are holding them all summer/fall until they spawn the fish. Gotta keep the water pumping etc. I'm not sure on this, do they leave them at the gate all summer or open them up into the hachery?)

[skein]

Thanks, Hogmaster, for sharing your exchanges with J.Brinkman. You are a word-master as well as a hogmaster (and netbender), and you are a good spokesman - at least in my eyes.

I just sent my letter to Brinkman and will also send a copy to his editor. In addition, I'm going to alert Les Schwab, whose ad appears right next to the article conclusion on page B6. I'm going to let them know I'm offended that they would, by their presence on the same page, endorse such an anti-sportsman article.

I'll share any response I get.

Skein

[Hogmaster]

OK, one more response from Mr. Brinckman:

__________________________________________________ _________________

I would certainly things differently if I had Monday again. I can't do the story over but can seek to be more thorough in the future. I'll keep an eye out for opportunities to do more on the subject.

best,

Jonathan

__________________________________________________ ___________

What do you think, all? Should he get away with a "learning experience"?

I have not replied to this one yet because I welcome feedback from others.

But considering he is admitting that the story was wrong and improperly written it just doesn't seem quite right to not push for further action than that...

I will point out to him that all of his responses are being posted on ifish too. Roughly 3500 available pairs of eyes may cause him to do more than reflect. Also, although the first email was cc:d to the editor, my others have not been. Seems that they should be forwarded on now though. Hmmm....

Thanks for the feedback skein, and for sending your feedback to them. They need to hear it.

[skein]

No, he should not be let off. Read my last reply to him for my reasoning. His article was anything but private - and he hammered a huge resource. A LOT of people stand to lose their livelihoods because of his irresponsible journalism. Oh, yeah, his editor's email is publiceditor@news.oregonian.com

Skein

See emails below:

Mr. Brinckman,

I have been reading with great interest the comments and observations between you and a myriad of northwest fishermen. I think you've created a fire-storm. It seems that your piece, based upon data that was five to eight years old, attempted to imprint a highly negative image of the impact of hatcheries across the state. I share with them the indignation your article invoked and have encouraged others to write and express their feelings.

It is my experience that when something valuable is being taken away, it is in the taker's best interest to discredit it first - at least in the eyes of the majority. That is true whether it is war - make the enemy appear sub-human, or hatcheries - make the cost ridiculously exorbitant. I believe there are those who want to show that fish and restoration are horribly expensive and that it would be in everybody's interest to put an end to it, especially in these economically hard times. After all, those $500 fish are costing *everybody*, not just the sportfishermen (the only benefactors you mentioned).

Mr. Brinckman, I don't know what the agenda was that prompted your article, but I can't just pass it off as sloppy journalism. My guess is your piece will ultimately - and negatively - impact a lot of people. I hope they remember and stay angry. I will.

His reply: ---------------------------------

I don't know how to respond to this because I naively assumed I was having private conversations with people who were upset by the article. I agree the article was flawed, but --- I know this is does not help -- I did not have ill intent. Thanks for taking the time to write.

best,

Jonathan

My reply back ---------------------------

Jonathan,

Your article was anything but private, why should our concern about it be any less? How many people read that piece and came away with a terrible taste in their mouth about Oregon's hatcheries? Trust me, there are a few hundred - no exaggeration - fishermen / citizens who are discussing your article. You hammered a huge economic resource pretty hard.

Thanks for replying.

[black magic]

Hogmaster & Skein,

Thank you very much for your extraodinary efforts in dealing with this obviously slanted report. You have shown an admirable willingness to put in some work on fisheries issues. You are making a difference. It may not show immediately, but it will in time. Defending our fisheries is a long term project, so don't give up.

This is not the first slanted article by Brinckman on fisheries. He recently wrote an article about groundfishery problems on the Oregon coast. He only wrote about the effects of this on the commercial trawl fishery. He didn't mention anything about the huge problem which was also looming for recreational fishers. When this was pointed out, he apologized then and said he would cover recreationals in a future article. WE ARE STILL WAITING!

I salute you and keep up the good work.

[Bill Monroe]

I also talked with Jonathan. Remember that the sec/sta released that report and then went on a holiday, so Jonathan had few sources to help and couldn't get caught late on the story...I'm not apologizing for him, however, and had some of the same concerns.
He reacts to news events.
What is needed badly is for some group (Yoo hoo, Liz?) to come up with an independent economic study on the value of salmon. The department has its economist, but that would also be viewed as too slanted.

I'm planning to do a year-end story about all of the 60-pounders and big fish statewide and will at that time do an accompanying piece on values. I myself, have invested a few hundred in my fish this year and the paper has more invested in the others (I pass it all out here at work).

[Miss B Haven]

Thanks Bill - I was waiting for your view. Glad to hear about your plan on the story. I'll send you all my bait, fuel, food, beverage, dock fee, truck fuel, cell phone, tackle, boat part receipts AND a visa bill that you can have the paper pay in return for using my cost/benefit data! :grin: Oh ya - I'll even tell ya how many fish I caught to finish the math with!

[skein]

We need other writers, though. I somehow feel it's not so much *what* we say as it is how many of us say it. And we don't need a retraction hidden somewhere on page 92. We need a re-hash of this article and its mis-information. We can't let these guys write garbage like that with impunity. Turn up the heat!

Skein

[Point-of-Sale Clerk]

Hogmaster

Catherine.E.Pollino@state.or.us

***

[Hogmaster]

Bill -

Most of out here are not newspaper people and don't quite understand why there should have been a deadline on a story that was going to end up appearing so innacurrate. To push a deadline without consideration of balance and confirmation of source seems again like irresponsible journalism to me.

I did just reply one more time to Mr. Brinckman and this time cc'd the editor:

__________________________________________________ __________________

Dear Jonathan:

Yes Mr. Brinckman I have been cutting and pasting your and my email messages into the ifish forum topic started yesterday about the article. That web site is averaging over 4000 hits per day I am told.

I do not understand why you think the responses you gave to me would need to be different had you realized a larger audience was reading them. Just exactly what is it that you would hold back? Would you go into a "no comment" stance perhaps? You did not qualify your messages to me as "private" and I did not choose to treat them that way.

You are in a position as a journalist for a newspaper with a significant readership that requires the awareness that anything you write has an impact. I feel it was good for you to admit that you would do things differently if you had it to do over. Everyone makes mistakes. The real issue remains as to what we choose to do to rectify them.

Here is the web site link to the specific forum.

http://www.ifish.net/ubb/ultimatebb....c;f=1;t=017072

Many feel that the issue cannot be simply ignored under the guise of doing better next time. They feel the Oregonian needs to step up to making a story that "balances" the first. I happen to agree.

Regards,
___________________________________

I am so upset I think I will take tomorrow off and go fish! :grin:

PS- Thanks ***!

[ 11-13-2002, 03:40 PM: Message edited by: Hogmaster ]

[skein]

Here's the latest reply I got back from the Public Editor:
----------------------------------------------

I have discussed the matter to some extent with Jonathan, and will do so with his editor, Len Reed. The time factor definitely should have been in there. Other readers' complaints have come my way, too.

I truly do not think Jonathan has any agenda other than reporting well, and I don't know why some information that should have been in the story was not. I don't know what discussions were held between writer and editor.

The issues are before the state, before people who make decisions on budgets, and they are fair ones for reporting, but the perspective and background needs to be there.

Thanks for writing.

Dan Hortsch
public editor

My reply -----------------------------------------

Dan, thanks for your reply, but that leaves us nowhere. Your reporter didn't *mean* to misconstrue the facts; he was just reporting the information that he had, albeit hopelessly out of date. Only thing is, the words he left unsaid were as important - and glaring - as the ones he included. And now we're supposed to roll over and play dead because you have discussed it and determined "Nolo Contendere," which is, as I understand it, "I didn't do it and I won't do it again."

There are many of us who think this subject is too important to the economic well-being of the communities in question to just pass over. Can we count on your newspaper and reporter to do another article with up-to-date information?

-------------------------------

We have their attention. We need to keep pushing this issue. BTW, the closest advertisers were:

Meier & Frank
Scamp's Pet Stores
Quest
Les Schwab

I'll be writing them as well, especially Les Schwab, who sells a lot of tires to us fisher/hunter types.

Skein

[CATCH AND EAT]

Wow. And I thought I was ticked about this article. Good job Hogmaster and Skein. You da men!!!

Mr. Brickman should not be let off on this one. He has skewed the opinion of thousands of Oregonian readers from this state and others close by. He has given "fuel" to that good for nothing Oregon Trout elitest group that really is nothing more than outdate baloney gone bad.

He needs to re-write an article that is a "fair" representation of the facts for environmental, economical impacts of having and NOT HAVING hatchery programs.

I would love to see a study done on the impacts of not having hatcherys and what the effect (disaster) would be should hatcheries be closed. Certainly would be mind boggling for sure.

Keep the pressure on to have this article retracted and rewritten. As stated this is not the first time that Mr. Brickman has printed a "BRICK". Do your homework mr. Brickman. Your article gets a "D" from me. It could have been so much more than a smear campaign against hatcheries.

Bernie [img]graemlins/berry.gif[/img] [img]graemlins/berry.gif[/img] [img]graemlins/berry.gif[/img]

[TheRogue]

My letter to his editor:

As an avid catch and eat fisherman, and more importantly, an Oregonian from the Portland Metro area, I was deeply disturbed by the recent article by one of your staff, Jonathan Brinckman, about the costs of hatchery-raised salmon.

As an informed fisherman, I was quite shocked that the Oregonian would print such as slanted, one-sided article. By simply listing the costs of each fish returning to the hatchery, this article has given the impression that hatcheries may be a huge waste of state money, in a time when there is an extreme shortage. I realize there are such things as deadlines and budgets, but to print such an article as this and not even giving lip service to the huge economic benefits that hatchery fish provide, and then running a large front page article about Portland School District cutting 15 days off the shortest school year in the country is, in my view, extremely irresponsible. Mr. Brinckman is either biased in his reporting, or bordering on incompetent. Either quality is not terribly desirable in a reporter.

That brings me to my second, and I feel, the most important point . As an Oregonian, who has grown up with your daily paper while living on the southern coast, and then continuing it while living here in Lafayette, I feel betrayed that such an article has been printed. How many other times, on issues I know little about, have I read an article and took it for the un-biased truth?? Are the things I read about the Oregon Lottery, or Kevin Mannix, or the Portland sewer system, actually reported to me in the way I thought they were, and how they should be?? Or are they slanted by a biased reporter, or maybe filled with half-truths and facts because the deadline was closing and the reporter needed to get something to the editor?? Perhaps I'm being very naive.

I strongly encourage your paper to pursue and report "The Rest of the Story" and right the wrong that has been perpetrated by Mr. Brinckman's article. I would also strongly suggest that you involve your outdoors reporter, Bill Monroe, who most of the sporting public enjoy and read. It would go a long way to restore my trust, as well as thousands of your concerned subscribers.

Sincerely,

Kyle Hensley

Lafayette, OR

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

[ 11-14-2002, 04:46 AM: Message edited by: TheRogue ]

[Joe]

I guess that shows about how much integrity Jonathon Brinkman has. I really like the part where he admits he is wrong when he only thinks one person was reading. :grin: :grin:

In all honesty though he did get away with it. Just like in his "Salmon Prove Pricey" article where he also takes everything out of context and misleads. He is swaying the opinion of ignorant people who just look at the headlines. That is what the anti-fish people like Oregon Trout and *** Clerk want him to do.

The question now is if he will he make any attempt to undo his damage?

[Point-of-Sale Clerk]

OUCH!
:depressed:

[garyk]

"anti-fish people" ???

[Hogmaster]

Joe -

For what it is worth:

I do not hold many of the same views as *** does about Hatcheries. But if you look within this thread he has pointed out that he too found the article poorly written and in fact I appreciated him challenging me to read the audit report itself. It gave me ammo to further expose Mr. Brinkman's story for what it is.

The audit claims they looked at ALL returning salmon, not just ones to the hatcheries but also those caught. That was not explained in the audit report completely (such as whether it included offshore adult fish caught by sport or commercial interests) and the Oregonian article was not clear on the point at all. It simply stated "returning salmon". *** was right to point out that they were counting and extending the creel census stats.

Let's take one issue at a time please.

Thanks, TR for writing and Bernie you need to C&P your comments too.

It is true that to a large extent the points have been made but now the numbers of people disgusted with it needs to proven, not just implied. Please take a minute and write! You have my permission to cut any of my information from these posts and put them into an email to the editor.

Thanks all!

[ 11-13-2002, 10:05 PM: Message edited by: Hogmaster ]

[Hogmaster]

OK, *** and all,

I wrote a second note to Mr. Brinckman last night regarding the comment from Lindsay Balls's letter that:

"Since 1999 the survival rates have improved dramatically and are estimated to be on the order of 5 to 10 times better than those reflected in the report."

Gee, a $17 to $50 dollar salmon wouldn't make much of a headline now would it????

Here is his response as of this morning:

Thanks for the emails: You make a good point. In defense I'll say I wrote the stories focusing on the disparities between hatchery costs and noted that the story did not address the economic benefits of hatcheries. The graphic did describe the years examined. But Ball's not about low returns should have been in the story.

best,

Jonathan

Jonathan Brinckman
The Oregonian
jbrinckman@news.oregonian.com
503-221-8190
__________________________________________________ _______

And here is what I wrote back:

Jonathan,

Thanks for your reviewing my email. But regardless of the point of the story being to focus on disparities between hatchery costs versus economic benefit I do not understand why the story was slanted "sensationally". Even your quote from Mr. Ball's letter is out of context. Your story states [he] "called the analysis a reliable guide for improving state hatchery programs".

But if we look at his letter, the first part of his sentence states, "With some additional refinements and an update when returns from FY 1998-2001 returns are estimated, this type of analysis could produce information that is both important to the issue and a reliable guide for improving state hatchery programs".

He didn't state is was a reliable guide in its present form as your article suggests. You also left out the part in his letter that states, "we note concerns with the report".

You chose to publish a front page Metro section story about an audit that wasn't even requested by the Legislature, is obviously flawed because of issues of how the returning salmon were accounted for, used outdated information at a time of low returns and yet is emboldened with the Headline of "Cost of hatchery salmon varies from $14 to $530 per fish".

Yes, I wholeheartedly agree that Mr. Ball's comment about the returns actually being 5 to 10 times better than during the audit period should have been in the story. The issue again is that there is a National Enquirer spin on your headline and it is not appreciated as distortion of the current situation.

When are you going to research or do a story on the economic benefit hatcheries provide?

I will be contacting Cathy Pollino, director of the audits division who authorized the audit without being directed to, the same question since her department apparently has so much free time to look at things.

__________________________________________________ _________________

Anybody know how to get ahold of Cathy Pollino??

By the way, the audit report is easy to read and *** is right there is some interesting information in there. Too bad about the use of it for sensationalism!

[Hogmaster]

Just got another email from Jonathan:
__________________________________________________ ________

This is a follow-up to my last email because in retrospect I consider my earlier reply too brief.

I agree with you and others that the story should have made an attempt to describe the economic benefits of hatcheries, and also should noted a point made in a letter by Lindsay Ball, the ODFW director, that the period examined by the auditors was a period of particularily low adult returns, which made the cost per adult higher than it would otherwise be. I should add that the state attempted to count all fish calculated to be caught and all fish that returned to the river, including but not limited to fish that returned to the hatchery. Again, without an indication of the money brought to the state by anglers it is impossible to put hatchery costs in context.

Best, Jonathan
__________________________________________________ ______

And my response:

__________________________________________________ _______

Thank you for your consideration on this, Jonathan.

But what can be done about it? What is the FAIR or RIGHT thing to do?

Is a story in the works?

Regards,

Gary

[corrirod]

O.k. thanks Ms.B and others who have clarified for me. It does cost more to raise coho. Perhaps the number should be even higher than stated? I hope not. I guess you could sum this report up by saying it's the best they could do with the data they had.

Fortunately the report was based on poor return years and should look better for years that followed. None-the-less, the Oregonian article was printed from one side of the story with just enough quotes to C his A.

All I know is if I were a non-fishing taxpayer and read that article, I'd want the hatcheries closed immediately, wouldn't you? The part that was not mentioned in the article was how much it would COST the state to close the hatcheries. No sportfishermen, no charters, no commercials, no processors, no boat sales, no bait sails, no fishing stores, etc..........

[CATCH AND EAT]

Sent my letter to Mr. Brinckman this morning. I hope he is getting an ear full and will retract his article and rewrite one that has the correct information.

[Uglygreen]

Hey ***.. I was going to point out what you did, earlier in the thread. But I have to admit i was a chicken**** SOB and chose to hide in the corner, good job.

That being said, I agree with the others that the audit has signifigant flaws, and little bearing on the issues facing hatcheries today.

Note how the return data is from the 1990's and the cost data... especally deffered maintaince... is from the year 2000 forward. It is comparing apples to oranges. The audit itself means nothing.

Except that it means more misinformed people. There is a political agenda, which is probably not going to change anytime soon.

I find myself caring less by the day.

UG

[takentime]

I have sent a couple of e-mails here is the response from the editor. [publiceditor@news.oregonian.com]

Thanks for writing. I think the article and the graphic offered a good deal of legitimate information and I don't think it was "sensational." That said, I am going to talk with his editor about issues that have arisen.

I have not yet recieved anything from Jonathan Brinckman That answers many of my questions. Here is his reply:

Dear Mr. Sears:

I agree the story should have included Lindsay Ball's point about the low returns rate of fish that left the hatcheries from 1994-1997. The years were included in the graphic, but the connection was not made that those were poor ocean years. I missed making that point, I believe, because I focused on the disparities among hatcheries and noted the audit did not address economic benefits. It might be that even a very expensive fish brings net economic gain to Oregon.
Best,

Jonathan

Jonathan Brinckman
The Oregonian
jbrinckman@news.oregonian.com
503-221-8190

As far as rewriting the story he has not replied to that question.

[corrirod]

This is the response he gave me to the letter I wrote yesterday:

Thanks for this. I'm sorry that you and so many others found the article poor and one-sided. I will say that wasn't my intent, but you and others would say that's not relevant.

best,

Jonathan

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helv">Sounds like Johnny's having a bad day! :depressed: :grin:

[skein]

Thanks to those who have written, and count this as an encouragement to those who are wondering if they should. Yes! Do it. They need to hear.

I sent this to his editor this morning:

-------------------------------------------
Thanks, Dan. By the way, could you send me Len Reed's email address? I'd like to add him to the discussion.

My guess is you probably think we're coming down pretty hard on Jonathan, but what if he wrote an article about PERS based on data from '94-97. Would it give the wrong impression?
--------------------------------------------

In thinking about it, I'm pretty sure I *don't* want to see Brinckman write another article. UG is right, it's a political issue that will be decided in the legislature and budget sessions. We just need to make sure when they make those decisions, they understand the full economic implications of what they do.

I'm still going to contact Les Schwab and let them know I was disappointed by their being on the same page as that tripe.

Skein

[ 11-14-2002, 11:16 AM: Message edited by: skein ]

[5-Cents]

Sent my email to JB and his editor.

[Joe]

I'm sorry if my anti-fish remark offended anyone.

It is my understanding that 80%+ of the fish harvested in Oregon are hatchery raised. If anyone or any group are anti hatchery then they are essentially anti-fish in my opinion.

I just believe that if my kids and their kids are going to be able to catch fish to eat then fish hatcheries are essential!

Hogmaster,
I read all the post's. I took it that *** was just upset that the article didn't lump the price of research and monitoring into the cost of raising the fish. Of course that would have made the hatcheries look even worse. Which of course would further his cause. At any rate I think it would take a lot more than a cheap shot from me to upset *** Clerk.

In my opinion the biggest flaw in the report is that during the years being studied, many salmon released were not fin clipped. Many still are not! Also most river systems do not have adequate creel census info. Like "The Rouge"pointed out that is why Salmon River has the lowest cost for Fall Chinook. There is intensive creel and research there to gather more accurate data.

This is the last you will hear from me on this subject.

[skein]

Joe - and everyone,

That's not what we need right now. We need you to share your statement in an email to the editors at the Oregonian. If they don't keep hearing our anger, they will just keep dishing out garbage.

This is the last you will hear from me on this subject.

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helv">They live in a world that says yesterday's news is dead meat. Today I didn't even get a response from the Public Editor, so he thinks the issue is closed. Tomorrow I will surprise him by asking him who *his* boss is. And then I will write that person. I doubt if we can repair the damage, but we can make damn sure they know we're watching them, and will call them on BS articles like Brinckman's.

Stay with us. We need your voice.

Skein

[Hogmaster]

Joe I didn't mean to upset you worse. Again, just trying to slay one dragon at a time. And that dragon is the story and frankly the audit itself.

If no one asked for it, why was it done? And why did the audit not pay better attention to the overall relevance to the issue of the hatcheries? A study that points out a wide disparity in cost is one thing, but not to factor obvious reasons for that dispairity is troubling to me.

But skein is right. Thanks those of you who took time to write today. Don't let this get swept away. It will of course, but if the next time a story like this is considered that they think about what will happen if they do, then we all will have made progress...

[Joe]

Email to Mr. Brinkman on it's way! :smile: . I will post if I get a reply.

[skein]

Okay, here's this morning's email (Nov 15) to the editorial staff at the Oregonian. I'll post the reponses:

Message-------------------------------------

Dan,

I'm still curious about the status of the hatchery article by Jonathan Brinckman. Are you planning a follow-up article with up-to-date information? Or are you in the "yesterday's news is dead meat" mindset, and figure the issue is closed. Dan, it isn't. A lot of people stand to be hurt by the misleading information in that article and there's a growing number of us who refuse to stand by and see this happen with impunity. Who are the victims? The wage-earners who man the tackle shops, boat shops, marinas, restaurants, gas stations, motels, and campgrounds that cater to and rely upon the tourists and fishermen who come to our coastal communities to catch fish - hatchery fish for the most part.

I have cc'd this email to both Len Reed and Sandy Rowe and would appreciate hearing back from you or your organization. This is not just going to go away.

The addresses I am using for Len and Sandy are lreed@news.oregonian.com and srowe@news.oregonian.com. Could you advise me if those addresses are incorrect? Thank you.

end of message-------------------------------

They would love to see this swept under the rug, but we can't let them do that. And we won't!

Skein