end of Lower columbia wild steelhead!!!

[rob allen]

NMFS apparently is going to allow the commercial spring chinook fishers a 5-7% mortality on Wild winter steelhead for the next 3 years. This is expected by a WDFW Biologist to cause the extinction of the Wild winter steelhead run on the South Fork Toutle river!!!

Enjoy all thoes hatchery spring chinook they come to you at an expence of the healthies wild winter steelhead run in the lower Columbia!!

I am now naking a new and more deliberate stand.

to Hell with hatcheries all they are is welfare for sport, commercial and tribal fishermen. thats all and they CAUSE the deaths of wild steelhead..

[fish-on]

no not really TO HECK with the gillnetters, they are the ones that do more harm thean good [img]graemlins/berry.gif[/img]

Unfortunately we'll be lucky if we can keep the mortality that low.
I think your blame is wrongly placed Rob. If it weren't for the non-selective gillnets then this would not be happening.
So at the cost of wild fish we are making sure the gill netters are getting their fair share

[rob allen]

If our hatcheries wenrn't making all thoes hatchery springers there'd be no commercial fishery!!! hatcheries and harvest are directly related they are not a separate issue.!!!

It wouldn't hurt my feelings one bit if the carson river salmon hatchery as well as the Klickitat and little white salmon hatcheries ceased production.
Everyone seems extremely willing to say to hell with wild fish well after decades of that totally unchanged attitude I have had enough.
the only good hatchery fish is one that dies before it can return to the hatchery!!

[ 01-16-2004, 07:14 PM: Message edited by: rob allen ]

That's better Rob and I appreciate your concern for wild fish!
This hatchery vs wild fish thing is quickly coming to a head. Apparently the Oregon/Washington Fish Commissions don't care.

[ 01-16-2004, 09:31 PM: Message edited by: Stew ]

[willierower]

Stew, Rob lost his credibilty with me a loooooooong time ago. The boy has issues.

[AuntyM]

Rob, when did NFMS approve WDFW's request?

If it wasn't for hatcheries, there wouldn't BE any wild fish. The commercials would have taken the last one BEFORE the ESA was enacted.

:tongue:

[Pete]

The issue isn't Rob's credibility ... the problem is the serious threat to wild winter steelhead. Tripling the mortality impact on wild winter steelhead cannot be good. I give Rob credit for caring. Wouldn't surprise me to see him in Olympia tomorrow trying to do something about it, either.

[ 01-16-2004, 06:36 PM: Message edited by: Pete ]

[boater]

Originally posted by AuntyM:
Rob, when did NFMS approve WDFW's request?

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">the fact that the WDFW even put in this request is whats ****ing me off, that in itself should tell you that they could care less about the wild steelhead in the columbia river.

[Mad Mikey]

I look forward to Robs' posts. They keep stuff interesting and I love to watch the feedback.

[rob allen]

Stew I could care less about my precieved lack of credibility.
Anunty M you are wrong !!! commercial fishermen would have been out of business LONG before esa if it wasn't for hatcheries!!!

One thing is crystal clear there is an agenda in out government agencies to destroy wild runs of fish and prop up commercial fishermen with hatchery runs.. Supporting hatcheries IS supporting the destruction of wild fish. Period thats it!! there is no longer any middle ground.. every hatchery fish that gets killed before it can be used to make more hatchery fish or kills wild fish by spawning in the riveris a VERY good thing.. every hatchery run that goes extinct is an AWSOME thing..

[rebell]

I don't see an issue with rob's credibility at all here. I see someone who really cares about wild fish.

Let's think for a minute.......Hatcheries and federal dollars are why we have gillnet's on the Columbia. Like it or not, that's a fact.

Now..... If sport anglers could reduce mortality on CnR fish to 1% (it's possible), show that we are willing to sacrifice a few day's on the water, and are willing to slowly close down a few hatcheries (or at least support fewer fish released), over time I think we would be better off. Why?..... It would show that we support wild fish. To the point that a limited wild harvest could be achieved.

I know that everyone here supports wild fish. But the continued support of hatcheries is why we have gillnets. If we really want to rid the Columbia of gillnets, we are going to have to make a few more sacrifices. It will hurt at first, but in time, I feel we would be better off.

Now before everyone lashes out at me!!!! Please understand that I feel a few more things need to happen before this could work out. #1 being how the dams in the Columbia are operated. Like it or not, we are stuck with them in the lower river for many more years to come. As far as the upper river.... who know's? I feel we just need to push for a more fish freindly way of operating all of the dams on the Columbia. So how do we get a louder voice in how dams are managed? Just another reason to get more united!! But untill all sport anglers set a common goal, it's simply not going to happen.

Of course there are other concerns, but untill sport anglers can reach an agreement with themselves on how fish are managed, we are fighting a losing battle against gillnets and other users of the river.

[rob allen]

WDFW's the one who's credibility you should be questioning..

First they refused to consider wild steelhead release in the few river where harvest is still allowed even though it was thr most requested new reg in state history..

This 7% request was just made withon the last couple days allowing onle a couple days of public testimony and only one meeting ( this Saturday in Olynpia)

Here is the truth.. WDFW does not care about me or you.. They hate public involvment and wish we would just shut up. This is a government agency that has said "to heck with the public we are gonna do whatever we darn well please."

The motto of WDFW should be. We hate wild steelhead and want them all dead"

There is a saying " if you always do what you have always done you will always get what you have always gotten" This is WDFW doing what they have always done.. What will we get out of it? extinct wild steelhead runs..

Who of us wouldn't care about wild steelhead? The fact that the NMFS is doubling the allowable mortality of wild steelhead is apalling to say the least! After the fiasco of the first years of tangle tooth nets one would think that something would be done! It hasn't been and I share Rob's outrage.

[ 01-16-2004, 09:31 PM: Message edited by: Stew ]

[Quasimodo the fish killer]

sheesh Rob do you ever post anything but doom and gloom?

I think its great to try and protect the wild strains but sheesh thats a little paranoid to say that the goverment wants to exterminate all wild steelhead. I would like to know if you fish rivers that have only wild fish in them? if so aren't you engangering them yourself? if your going to scream about the gillnetters taking the chance of killing them then you should get off your holier then thou soap box.

its good to be aware if things that will impact the fish populations but you get all bent out of shape. do you really think anyone that matters in the goverment is going to listen to a hot head like you?


I do not believe for a minute that the nmfs would kill off one endangered fish species to save another, just so a hand full of commercial gill netters can have a few of them. NMFS as far as I know doesnt get paid by the commercial fishermen so what would they have to gain by doing what your are acusing them of? there goes your paranoia again. you should maybe have your doctor up your meds they aren't working well.


as far as your hatred of hatchery fish and hatcheries I think your a knuckle dragger left over from the neanderthal period. if it weren't for hatcheries there would be less wild fish then there is now. the hatcheries arent the problem its a combined problem with river degradion, spawning bed loss, river flow and water temprature changes, over harvest, if you seen some of the stats of tons of fish harvested in the early 1900's, it would make your stomach turn, the list goes on and on and on. I doubt that the hatchery fish play as large of a roll in the decline of wild fish as you let it sound like.


if it were up to me they would dump 20 times as many hatchery fish then they do now. make it easier for everyone to catch hatchery fish then no one will be tempted to kill a wild fish and sneak it out. I am not convinced that after 40 to 50 years of hatchery fish being dumped in the rivers that there are any true wild fish left anyway. I think they spawn in the wild but their genes are so washed out by hatchery fish that its a push to call them native.

oh one last thing before you spout some more drivvel I have never kept a wild steelhead in my life. I was playing catch and release with those beauties many years before it was a law and before they were even considered at risk.

you want to know why ? because of hatchery fish I knew I could catch and kill a hatchery fish if I wanted a fish to eat so I let the wild ones go.


well I think I am going to head to bed so I can go a hatchery stocked river and catch some hatchery fish. [img]graemlins/berry.gif[/img]


Quasi.

.

[GutshotApe]

Originally posted by Quasimodo the fish killer:
I am not convinced that after 40 to 50 years of hatchery fish being dumped in the rivers that there are any true wild fish left anyway. I think they spawn in the wild but their genes are so washed out by hatchery fish that its a push to call them native.

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">Hatchery "dumping" has been going on a lot longer than 40 or 50 years...and it is true that hatchery fish can & do spawn with wild fish creating wild/domestic "hybrids". But, the offspring of these unions perform relatively poorly and very little next generation recruitment from them occurs. The primary result of these "mixed marriages" is fewer wild fish 4 years later...not diluted genes...because the mongrel progeny don't survive.

Most rivers still have essentially pure, but reduced, runs of wild fish...although in many rivers the wild fish are still being overwhelmed by hatchery plants. There is ample research and evidence, such as electrophoretic genetic testing, that proves this to be true.

[rob allen]

Quasi..


Tell me one thing good for wild steelhead that has heppened in the state of Washington?? hmm they made a few rivers catch and release because they were in serious decline?? Here in WA there is nothing but doom and gloom for wild steelhead. Not a glimer of hope!

"do you really think anyone that matters in the goverment is going to listen to a hot head like you? " I believe thats what i just said.. but it's not just me they don't listen to anyone! ( NOT EVEN THEIR OWN BIO's!!!!!

As far as your views on the science and historical data i suggest you look again
what you'll find is that though there was massive overharvest every run survived it!! even the most heavily fished sockeye runs.. hatcheries proped up and allowed the overharvest to continue as well as adding other very signifigant problems.
If there'd have been no hatcheries that continued over harvest would not have continued. We'd have MORE wild fish not less


As for habitat it's imporving in nearly all locations and fish runs aren't!

[trout chaser]

It just blows my mind about them not listening to their own Biologist.

[andy-ap emerger]

&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;Stew I could care less about my precieved lack of credibility.
Anunty M you are wrong !!! commercial fishermen would have been out of business LONG before esa if it wasn't for hatcheries!!!&gt;&gt;&gt;

Gang, putting a head in the sand will not fix it. Rob's point is VERY valid and should be an issue to be address. If not by us, than who? Our kids? There will not be anything left. Also, the gillnetter "problem" doen't help ANYTHING at all either.

Give Rob a break, he is simply passionate enough to make us all think & hopefully react. Whether you like him or not is NOT the issue.


My .02 worth. Hey...Are these Peso's...Crud [img]graemlins/eek13.gif[/img]


AP

[gottafish]

Rob I got nothin but love for ya Brother!!! Go gettem.

[Thumper]

Rob --- To clarify --- Are you advocatng that every single hatchery be shut down? If not, which ones would you close (or save)?

[foxer]

Easy fix here for WDFW. Close all of the lower tribs to fishing period. This may be the easiest way for them to "solve" the situation. Or my way, buy out all of the gillnetters' licenses. Next, work on the Native Americans

[AuntyM]

Uh.... NOAA Fisheries has not made any decision. It's highly unlikely that it would be applicable to THIS springer season anyway.... AND!!!!!

All the sportfishing groups are teaming up. It's likely they will be joining Washington Trout and other enviro groups to stop this increase from ever happening.

7% indeed. I don't know WHO they're trying to kid! We'd have an anti gillnetting flotilla on the Columbia like you've never seen! :grin:

[SHLEPROCK]

A few years ago when they listed the ESA fish I thought it was all over for us. Maybe it was all in the BIG PLAN to benefit commercial fishing.
I think that if given enough rope they will hang themselves.

Unfortunately we have become "hatchery fish addicted" and there is no easy way to overcome that.The ODFW/WDFW have painted themselves into a corner on this problem.
I'll agree that hatcheries in both states have been mismanaged with little or no regard for wild fish.Just look at the Skamania hatchery on the Washougal river in Washington for an example of this! So what is the solution both short term and long term?
How does the state supply the tag and license buying folks with fish to take home?
Can we really just shut them down right now?
I don't have the answers but would be interested in what others think.

[boater]

Originally posted by Stew:
I don't have the answers but would be interested in what others think.

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">we need to ban the gillnets.

[freespool]

Stew,I believe it's hatchery fish codependent. I agree with what your saying. In my estimation wild fish stock recovery on the Columbia river is never going to happen. The primary reason for this is habitat degradation. But the coastal rivers will be able to generate native runs,given more attention is given to habitat restoration.


salmon hugger

[Born to be Wild]

A lot of interesting points being made here!
Perhaps Rebell summed it up best.
First though I must address Quasimodo the fish killer:

Posted by Quasimodo the fish killer:

as far as your hatred of hatchery fish and hatcheries I think your a knuckle dragger left over from the neanderthal period. if it weren't for hatcheries there would be less wild fish then there is now. the hatcheries arent the problem its a combined problem with river degradion, spawning bed loss, river flow and water temprature changes, over harvest, if you seen some of the stats of tons of fish harvested in the early 1900's, it would make your stomach turn, the list goes on and on and on. I doubt that the hatchery fish play as large of a roll in the decline of wild fish as you let it sound like.

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">Actually that is incorrect QtfK.
As Rob or someone has pointed out, hatchery fish that used to be unmarked gave us a false sence of strength of our wild fish numbers and further promoted over fishing on wild stocks.
This has taken place up in BC also.
This problem along with the numerous other well documented problems that hatchery fish bring to wild fish has brought us some very depressed and very extinct wild stocks.

Your statement “the hatcheries aren’t the problem” shows that you are out of touch with science and the hundreds of scientific reports coming in since the 80’s showing the detrimental effects that hatchery fish have on wild fish.
Now I’m not at all saying that hatcheries are the only or biggest problem but it is believed that in many situations that hatchery influence is the biggest problem, i.e. the hatchery Skamania summer steelhead stocks suppression of the Clackamas wild winter steelhead.
Guys like you need to read that very in-depth report I posted on the Clack steelhead.

if it were up to me they would dump 20 times as many hatchery fish then they do now. make it easier for everyone to catch hatchery fish then no one will be tempted to kill a wild fish and sneak it out. I am not convinced that after 40 to 50 years of hatchery fish being dumped in the rivers that there are any true wild fish left anyway. I think they spawn in the wild but their genes are so washed out by hatchery fish that its a push to call them native.

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">Yea well who is going to pay for those 20x more hatchery fish QtfK?
You might have observed hatcheries are loosing funding, not gaining.
You’re rationalizing the wrong direction. That would further more endanger the wild stocks and besides wild fish are the ones we should be killing and eating as we do wild Chinook and many other species in the pacific northwest and Alaska.

“any true wild fish left anyway”?
GSA did a good job answering that question of yours and ifisher’s overwhelmingly believe and know the difference.
If you read fish science and/or fish the rivers extensively you will notice that wild fish return at a much higher rate than the hatchery fish, and you will notice that they return and spawn at a later time period and that they are a healthier better fighting fish on average than the hatchery fish and other characteristics.

oh one last thing before you spout some more drivvel I have never kept a wild steelhead in my life. I was playing catch and release with those beauties many years before it was a law and before they were even considered at risk.

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">I’m curious as to how you knew which ones were the wild ones to release back then (before it was a law ) when the hatchery fish weren’t fin clipped?

Posted by Stew:
Unfortunately we have become "hatchery fish addicted" and there is no easy way to overcome that.

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">Very well said and good point Stew!
It’s not an easy one to resolve but there are a lot of situations where the use of hatchery fish are counter productive and not needed.
The sooner folks realize and accept this fact the better off we all are.

Posted by Freespool:
Stew,I believe it's hatchery fish codependent. I agree with what your saying. In my estimation wild fish stock recovery on the Columbia river is never going to happen. The primary reason for this is habitat degradation. But the coastal rivers will be able to generate native runs,given more attention is given to habitat restoration.

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">Good point Freespool but I do think wild stock recovery in some Columbia River tribs is possible and perhaps happening?
Take the Lewis River wild Chinook for example. Correct me if I am wrong Jack, but I think they are doing quite well.
But for wild coho and steelhead on the Lewis (NF), I believe the majority of the habitat is dammed up. Cedar Creek alone is not going to be sufficient for producing wild coho and steelhead.

I believe other trib’s like the Elocoman and Kalama have good enough or potential habitat to produce some good amounts of wild fish and actually they d have some.
Problem I see there is even if you get rid of the hatchery problems on those rivers, the wild smolts from those trib’s are still going to intermingle with the massive amounts (millions) of Columbia River smolts (large oversize hatchery smolts) and take their toll when these large stupid hatchery smolts attract every predator possible.
In other words, when you “chum” the seals, terns and other Columbia estuary predators with these large naïve hatchery smolts, the wild smolts are going to get hammered also.

Anyway, enough barstool biology from me for the night.

Tight lines,

Dan

[ 01-17-2004, 11:14 PM: Message edited by: Born to be Wild ]

[TonTo]

Close the hatcheries,put your rods in a museum,and forfit your privlege.Problem solved.
I don't believe closing all the hatcheries is the answer to anything.Yes I get a warm fuzzy feeling thinking there are still some wild runs out there somewhere,but I do like a bit of fish on my plate from time to time too.If you close all the hatcheries down that would about put an end to all fishing sport and comercial.No pressure,no mortality rate to worry about ,we can all sleep well at night with visions of wild fish swimming free,with no fears from nets or hooks.Maybe ya should give PETA a call while you're at it and find out where we should all send our suport checks.

[GutshotApe]

I think BTBW is right...some rivers, like the Lewis, White Salmon, Elwha, etc., with un-laddered high dams on their lower reaches, and possibly rivers with Corps of Engineers dams farther upstream i.e. the Willamette tributaries, might be appropriate places for fish hatcheries and large hatchery programs. But other rivers such as the Kalama, Toutle, Elochoman, McKenzie...and many more elsewhere in WA and OR that are un-dammed perhaps should be managed without hatchery fish, as well. Many strong fall chinook runs support a lot of catch & keep fishing. What would other wild fish runs be like in these undammed rivers if not subjected to hatchery programs?

[Born to be Wild]

Hi ho TonTo!\

I don’t think there are very many of us that would want to see ALL hatcheries closed. I for one am not one of them.
By the way, I enjoy eating both hatchery and wild fish.

The mentality of closing or reducing some hatchery programs will bring an end to sports fishing is just not so.
A good example is the Beaver Creek hatchery on the Elocoman that closed probably 5 or 6 years ago.
I’m sure some cried “doom & gloom” but actually the Elocoman still has an excellent coho (early & late’s), winter steelhead and Chinook fishery.
It doesn’t have near the numbers of smolts or adults any longer, but you don’t need that many anyway (unless perhaps you want to support the gill net fishery ).
In some situations it has helped sports fishing by improving the health of wild stocks that often times drive the sports fishing quota’s.
In some situations like the Oregon coast, I believe it has increased overall numbers of coho (both hatchery and wild).

I’m sure there are those groups and individuals that would like to see all fish hatcheries mothballed. I am not one of them.
I would like to see rivers with good habitat reduce and eventually eliminate hatchery supplementation that is not needed and suppressing the wild fish.

There are rivers in the pacific northwest where there is harvest on wild species such as steelhead, fall chinook, coho, chum salmon, spring chinook , sockeye, pinks and cutthroat trout.
I would venture to guess that the majority of these wild fish comsumptive fisheries are without a lot of hatchery influence and that those are the healthier stocks.

The old saying; “don’t fix it if it ain’t broke”.
Unfortunately we had numerous rivers with healthy wild fish in them and decided to play God and created “hatchery fish”.
Many of those rivers that weren’t broke, are presently.

Dano.

[speyfly]

Well Rob, it's nice to see that your getting some support these days. Good job Rob and keep the flame burning.

[Wood N' Fish]

GSA-The McKenzie river has Blue River, Cougar and the Carmen Smith Dams on it blocking mil;es of prime habitat. Unless the Mckenzie you're referring to is in Washington?

[freespool]

Don't forget Leaburg Dam on the main stem.

salmon hugger

[rob allen]

Thumper

Though if every hatchery closed it wouldn't hurt my feelings I wouldn't consider that I advocate closing them all. There are certainly hatcheries that make complete sence.
Dumping hatchery fish in the East Lewis makes no sence when very nearby there are no less than 4 rivers with hatcheries on them. There are certainly hatcheries i definetly want to see close the foremost being the Carson This hatchery i believe is the primary reason that Wind river summer steelhead have failed to rebound since the rivers closure.. It should have 1500-3500 wild summer steelhead instead is has 400 or less. I believe if the carson hatchery didn't dump thoes fish in the WInd you'd see a radical and swift recovery on wild steelhead in the Wind.

Anyway there is certainly a place for hatcheries it's just not every single river like we have now..

[SilverFly]

I told myself I wouldn’t weigh in on any controversial topics yet, but having seen wild fish dwindle over the last 30 years, I have to put in my 2 cents on this one.

Before I back up Rob, let me say that I love to eat hatchery steelhead (and salmon.) I also believe that I am supporting the hatchery system by purchasing a tag, and therefore, I should harvest as many hatchery fish as possible. I am all for the “pristine” fishing experience (if such a thing exists anymore) but when I go fishing, I want to bring something home. Maybe it’s the Norwegian in me, or that I’m on a budget, but I appreciate the value of putting high quality protein on my family’s table. So I am sympathetic to those who are alarmed at the thought of shutting down hatcheries.

The problem Rob’s getting at is there’s an unbreakable political bond between commercial fishing and hatcheries. So as long as hatcheries exist, there will be commercial fishing and vice versa. This would not necessarily be a bad thing, if a truly selective means of commercial harvest existed, making “proper” management a possibility. If so, we wouldn’t be having this discussion. Instead we would be arguing over who gets how many fish and that would be it. Unfortunately without true selective harvest technology, it is almost impossible to “properly” manage a mixed stock fishery, and the Columbia River is THE definition of a mixed stock fishery, - REGARDLESS of location or time of year. As a result, fisheries managers cannot help but see some native fish runs as an “inconvenience” at the least, and at worst, as “pests” to be exterminated.

One might think the fact that hatcheries are ultimately dependant on native fish for genetic survival might sway management decisions. And, this might be true for some native runs with commercial potential (salmon) but because steelhead are not (and hopefully never will be) a commercial species, they therefore end up on the bottom of the “pro-commercial totem pole.” As a result you get a NMFS decision to allow 7% harvest of listed native steelhead. Of course this is just an estimate, but the bottom line is gillnets will be in the CR at the peak of the native winter steelhead run. Mesh size regulations won’t even help because some of these steelhead run larger than the average spring Chinook.

So what’s the answer? Shutting down hatcheries, at least the one’s driving the in-river commercial fisheries? I don’t think this could be done if every sport fisherman (and their mother!) in the state showed up in Olympia. That said, you can bet that a group of sportsmen simply suggesting closing a hatchery would get someone’s attention!

And IMO, that is the key. Presenting a unified front that is WILLING to consider extreme measures for the sake of wild fish. One consistent theme I have read on this board is unanimous support for wild fish. I think that is because anyone who has fished long enough knows there is a very real difference between natives and hatchery fish. The widespread use of the term “brats” on this board implies a recognized inferiority of hatchery fish. As much as we all love brats for sport and table fare, I doubt anyone here is anything but thrilled to catch and release a nate. At the very least, we need to be willing to CONSIDER closing some hatcheries if that’s what’s needed to save them.

Personally, I think the answer is finding practical selective harvest technology. Even though I like the idea of NO commercial fishing, I don’t believe it is realistic. Trying to eliminate hatcheries or commercial fishing directly is an uphill battle to say the least. Sure, it might be possible to buy out the commercial licenses, but then you still have the tribal nets. Forcing the issue of harvest technology has a much better chance politically because it doesn’t put the “opponents” (hatcheries or commercial fishermen) in an all out fight for survival. At a time when we’re talking about putting people on Mars, commercial fishing is still being done with technology developed in the stone age! You would think by now someone could find an effective way to harvest hatchery fish in an ecologically responsible manner. It’s time WDFW, ODFW, NMFS, the Tribes and the rest of the government realize GILLNETS DO NOT BELONG IN THE COLUMBIA RIVER!!!!!

By the way, I was lucky enough to CnR a fiesty nate on the Washougal Friday morning, and it was my first trip of the year! Statistically, I should have landed 3 Skamania brats before that fish!

[GutshotApe]

Originally posted by Wood N' Fish:
GSA-The McKenzie river has Blue River, Cougar and the Carmen Smith Dams on it blocking mil;es of prime habitat. Unless the Mckenzie you're referring to is in Washington?

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">You're right...but the mainstem McKenzie and most tributaries are undammed and still provide good wild fish habitat. The low Leaburg dam is no real barrier to adult fish and its pool is small with discernable current so smolts pass downstream fast...and, EWEB now has a large functioning fishscreen at the head of the power canal at the dam. The McKenzie River springers were immortalized many years ago in Roderick Haig-Brown's Return to the River and the run remains relatively strong.

[Born to be Wild]

Dumping hatchery fish in the East Lewis makes no sence when very nearby there are no less than 4 rivers with hatcheries on them.

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">What little I know about the EF Lewis I would have to agree with you Rob and there are a few more just like it.
How about the Coweeman?

That was an excellent post SilverFly!

Dano

[Fishybill]

It's real simple. Oregon is the worst run state in the union (see long term unemployment rates), despite a wealth of natural rescources and low per capita figures. Throw in the pathetic condition of schools, legistlatures who dare to override state constitution mandated voter caucuses, a federally illegal assisted suicide law (which will cost the state millions before it ever really becomes available to most), and the whole "whoops we just digested another species" follies of local government, missing steelhead forever aren't much differnet than missing goldfish this afternoon.

You heard it here folks....Oregon is going to crash and burn, even after most of the rest of the country recovers economically, and before the few remaining workhorses (significant tax payers) finally move to Vancouver. The only lasting problem is that human beings repopulate a little faster than magnificent species evolve.

[Irie1]

RA (opening post)

To hell with hatcheries

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">RA (reply to thumper)

I wouldn't consider that I advocate closing them all

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">Makes perfectly good sense to me.


Not!

[willametteriveroutlaw]

Kyle,
I believe that there are only springers planted in the wind river.

[SHLEPROCK]

http://www.nwr.noaa.gov/1sustfsh/biops.htm
Nothing updated recently

[freespool]

I talked to an old timer on the Wind years ago. He told me before they put a fish ladder around the falls there were many steelhead over 20# in the river. He said after the ladder was installed the size of the steelhead dropped way off.

salmon hugger

[rob allen]

The Rogue

There are no steelhead planted in the Wind river.
They quit planting in the mid 90's when the returns were below 50 adults and the river was closed. And Yes I am talking about an end to that very popular fishery! Wind river wild steelhead are far more important than that fishery. However i do see room for a compromise.

1. the production of spring chinook be moved to the hatchery at drano lake and thoes fish could be planted at the mouth of the Wind river. or even up as high as shipard falls. At the same time close the fish ladder and as historically only summer steelhead will be above the falls.
This way you'd protect the fragile wild steelhead run yet maintain the very popular fishery at the mouth.
Anyone not willing to accept such a fair compromise isn't interested in working together to find real solutions in my opinion. I for one am serious about finding workable compromises. However any time you talk about eliminating any kind of fishery there is stiff opposition indicating an unwillingness to work together.
Thats the attitude that makes me say things like "to hell with hatcheries"

[Siwash]

I've seen Rob get flamed plenty before, but I personally consider anyone who's willing to stick his (or her) neck out for wild steelhead to be on the friendly side. I may not agree with him 100%, but that's OK, too. At least I appreciate him stirring the pot.

I also agree with BtbW and GSA about some of the hatcheries being a reasonable trade-off in systems where major dams have totally eliminated most of the available habitat, but that we should strive to minimize their interference everywhere else. The current consumptive fishery for healthy, wild coastal fall chinook stocks is a good example to shoot for.

And extra kudos to Silverfly for a particularly well written and reasoned post.

[TheRogue]

Originally posted by rob allen:
Thumper

Though if every hatchery closed it wouldn't hurt my feelings I wouldn't consider that I advocate closing them all. There are certainly hatcheries that make complete sence.
Dumping hatchery fish in the East Lewis makes no sence when very nearby there are no less than 4 rivers with hatcheries on them. There are certainly hatcheries i definetly want to see close the foremost being the Carson This hatchery i believe is the primary reason that Wind river summer steelhead have failed to rebound since the rivers closure.. It should have 1500-3500 wild summer steelhead instead is has 400 or less. I believe if the carson hatchery didn't dump thoes fish in the WInd you'd see a radical and swift recovery on wild steelhead in the Wind.

Anyway there is certainly a place for hatcheries it's just not every single river like we have now..

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">.....eliminating a very popular and profitable Wind River spring chinook fishery at the mouth, or are you talking about just eliminating steelhead production?

TR

[SlimPickens]

Can someone lead me to a website with the proposal and approval information?

Want to read for myself what's up....

thanks!

[cosmo]

Originally posted by rob allen:


I for one am serious about finding workable compromises. However any time you talk about eliminating any kind of fishery there is stiff opposition indicating an unwillingness to work together.
Thats the attitude that makes me say things like "to hell with hatcheries"

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">Rob, you make a great emotional argument and as a sport fisherman who does care about wild fish, it is, at first, difficult in good conscience to disagree. WIth the facts about hatchery practices and programs it becomes much easier.

The sport fisherman has been all about workable compromises. In fact, Clackamas River, Mollala River, Nestucca River, Nehalem River, Sandy River, Wilson River, HAVE ALL BEEN COMPROMISED, and this is just a short list.
Sport fishermen have given up full runs of hatchery fish for the sake of wild fish, yet no credit ever seems to be given, no time ever allowed to see a difference.

Over the last decade, fisheries have eroded all around us. Maybe many on this board were not actively fishing fifteen years ago, maybe they were not paying attention or have not looked at past hatchery statistics. If you haven't I'd suggest you do.

What you will see as differences in two snapshots, one from today and one from 1988 (or anywhere thereabouts) is a massive reduction in hatchery programs. The Nestucca used to produce 15,000 sport CAUGHT steelhead. Now it offers a hatchery RETURN of a few thousand fish. Low and behold, the wild fish return is estimated at 10,000 fish---where is all the destruction of the wild steelhead based on hatchery plantings? No summer program in the Clackamas or Mollala Rivers anymore. Puny plants in comparison on the Sandy and WIlson Rivers. Mainstem Nehalem hatchery releases have been gone for years (mianly based on fishability of the river).

Rob paints a Utopia waiting for fishing with the closing of the last hatchery. Where are the seasons on the Salmonberry, Drift Creek, North Fork Wilson, Smith River, Rock Creek, Clear Creek---places where hatchery fish have been removed for years. What were the historic numbers of wild fish in coastal rivers---I'll answer that---NO ONE KNOWS. There are no expectations for probable wild fish populations. The only rivers you can take a guess at is those without hatchery supplementation and for all the years of study now, no one sees a population where the trigger can be pulled on a wild fish harvest of steelhead in Northern Oregon. What is the reasoning behind an expectation that that fact would change? Better habitat? How? Population Reduction? Less pressure on resources?

A lot of credit should be given for the steps being taken to minimize potential negative effects of hatchery programs. Anglers should realize all that they have given up already. And wild fish proponents should realize just how much they need the sport angler and be willing to compromise instead of trying to wage a guilt war on the largest group that cares enough to be concerned for wild fish.

[ 01-21-2004, 10:28 AM: Message edited by: cosmo ]

[cosmo]

[ 01-21-2004, 06:12 PM: Message edited by: cosmo ]

[rob allen]

Cosmo... thats Oregon.. In Washington there have been no such compromises.. Particularly in Southwest Washington where there is excellent historical data to suggest how many wild fish there should be in the rivers.

[garyk]

Back to the original point, (which folks can actually do something about) the proposed increased allowable take:

1. If I'm understanding it correctly, the so-called '5% to 7% mortality' is for the river as a whole.

However, we know that some of these lower Columbia tribs have very depressed runs with total numbers of only a few dozen to a couple hundred steelhead. With some bad luck a gillnet might snag a good portion of those fish. Thus, the damage to a fragile stock could easily escalate to 25%, 50% or more.

The smaller the run the greater the percentage each individual represents. And the greater the impact of losing even a few individuals.

With all the really tough-to-solve issues that beleaguer steelhead (dams, habitat, etc), wouldn't you think we could get around and eliminate this one - indiscriminate netting? Can't we do better?

Approved by NMFS or not, just the fact that this proposal comes from Washington and Oregon's managing agencies is very disturbing.

[ 01-21-2004, 10:35 PM: Message edited by: garyk ]

[boater]

Originally posted by garyk:
Approved by NMFS or not, just the fact that this proposal comes from Washington's managing agency. is very disturbing.

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">whats even more disturbong is we are not doing anything about it, not that i`m some kinda radical protester but i realy think we need to send these clowns a message at the next meeting, like about 3000 ****ed off sportsman, but, that wont happen.

[Point-of-Sale Clerk]

Links to all document submitted by WDFW/ODFW to NOAA Fisheries regarding the increase in take and the Spring Chinook Fishery
(warning some are very large)

Word format


Coverletter_04.doc

STW BA Final.doc

FINAL 03 SAFE BA.doc

UCol_amend_04.doc

SnakeRiver_amend_04.doc



[ 01-21-2004, 10:52 PM: Message edited by: *** Clerk ]

[Ty]

Glad I am not on this post..... There are many replying to this oen tha thave no credibility w/ me!!! [img]graemlins/berry.gif[/img] [img]graemlins/berry.gif[/img] [img]graemlins/icon_argue.gif[/img] [img]graemlins/berry.gif[/img] [img]graemlins/berry.gif[/img]

[Ty]

Glad I am not on this post..... There are many replying to this one that have no credibility w/ me!!! [img]graemlins/berry.gif[/img] [img]graemlins/berry.gif[/img] [img]graemlins/icon_argue.gif[/img] [img]graemlins/berry.gif[/img] [img]graemlins/berry.gif[/img]

[finclipped]

Good discussion. Silverfly

[Salmon Stryker]

Ty,
This thread is almost a week old already. A couple of years ago a post like this from Rob would have recieved 150-200 posts by others hashing it out with him within the first couple of days. I think everyone has grown tired of the doom and gloom and the antics by now and most don't even bother.

[Flatfish]

I posted on this. But I would get ugly email for my thoughts on the subject. So....Deleted.

Mark and the dog.

[ 01-22-2004, 08:58 AM: Message edited by: Flatfish ]

[Quasimodo the fish killer]

Born to be wild I knew because the hatchery on the mckenzie river here has been fin clipping steelhead for a very long time. they may not have clipped every fish that was released but they clipped a good number of them. also I have read reports and yes they made huge mistakes with flawed science. my opinion is science is great as long as common scese is used along with it and comon sense was never used by ODFW.

the reports you speak of were made many years ago and lots has changed since then. a recent study might show those reports to be flawed because of the out dated science that was used in them.

you can rely on out dated reports for your beliefs thats up to you of course a lot of people believed the world was flat for a long time too

anyway I am done with this topic have a greeat day


Quasi

[fishindogs]

This is a good discussion, but as with all discussions of salmon/steelhead problems with harvest and hatcheries, it misses the point.

When the US first started commercially harvesting Salmon in the Northwest, we were already aware of the major problems with overharvest, dams and habitat depletion because the Atlantic Salmon had already been driven to extinction in the East. But our industrial society "needed" to grow and "control" nature. Enforcing any regulations went counter to "progress." So instead, the US opted to continue overharvest, dam building and habitat destruction but tried to eliminate the effects with unproven hatcheries. Hatcheries were (and are) a crutch (and an unsuccessful one at that), so all the powerful industries can continue their destruction of the resource without "overregulation".
The real answers to the salmon problem, is habitat improvement, (such as proposed in the Tillamook 50/50 proposal and removal of main stem dams on the Columbia AND harvest regulation. But anytime a solution causes problems for powerful industries, it is not likely to be popular. (Money talks and b***s*** walks.)

note: For anyone interested in a very good history of the salmon problem, I would recomment the book, "Salmon without Rivers" by Jim Lichatowich. It is a real eye opener, written by a fisheries bioligist.