Will Natives ever make it to the table?

[GOT2FISH]

Excusse my ignorance! But I have to ask will native Steel head ever reach a point were the will be kept. Or will they be over taken by hathery fish, I personaly feal you can tell the diffrence when you hook them I was woundering if they taste diffrent? Some may think this is a dumb question but I'm just woundering, and dont know who to ask.

[DanS]

They don't taste any different.

For the most part, they fight different.

IMHO they're better on a line than on a table.

Will natives ever make it to the table?
I certainly hope not
My opinion is if you need a trophy then carefully take measurements and lots of pictures. Then go get a nice replica mount to go along with that picture.
Once you kill it it's just another dead fish! So set your ego aside and do the right thing :smile:

[24 on/ 48 off]

I think nates are at their prettiest after you unhook them, and they turn tail, and swim away :smile:

--spud-- :smile:

[Uglygreen]

I certainly hope that someday native steelhead and salmon runs come back to the point that stocks were strong enough to do away with the hatcheries altogther and still have a consumptive fishery. Wouldn't it be grand if all the fish in the river were big, beautiful and wild? Wouldnt it be grand if the stocks were strong enough that sportfishers killing and keeping a few wouldnt harm the stock overall? I think we will get there, it may take a hundred years or so, but someday it would be neat to see natives make it to the table.

UG

[ 01-23-2004, 05:26 AM: Message edited by: Jennie@ifish ]

[Mrdorkfish]

They will never make my table, Sunday i caught a native...bout kicked my buttocks :shocked: Today i caught a hatchery fish..all i had to do is lift my tip and reel down...come to papa There wasn't 3 reel scream'n runs or MrDorkfish think'n "is my line strong enough" Uh.. NO. Not on any table..anytime soon.

IMO.

MrDorkfish [img]graemlins/dork.gif[/img]

Some guy named Louis

[baitslinger]

They make it too our table? After all, God provided them for us to eat didn't he!!! A side benefit is that you don't have to worry about all the crap they were fed at the hatchery. I read a disturbing article awhie back in the Oregonian, that at that time the fish food was coming from europe i think, and had basically was loaded with toxins? I think they have improved the feed source, but with a wild fish you can be sure is much better to eat if one is concerned about contaminants, mercury, antibiotics, etc. Sort of like the "organic food" thing.

[Water Ready]

So, Is hatchery offspring considered natives? And do they fight better, and how do you know when they are in the air? Just looking for some clarity, cause unless you use the DNA, how would you know if it's a true "native" or "hatchery offspring"?

[freespool]

They were on my table for over 30 years. Do I think they will be on it again? Yes they will,if we pay close attention to habitat,and fish management. 20 foot, high graded buffers are not going to cut the mustard,if native steelhead are ever going to be table fare in our lifetime.*

Rogue and Elk River already have native winter steelhead retention,it's 5 per year.


salmon hugger

[baitslinger]

Stew,

Native steelie = Yum, yum, yum!!!

Peace & Love Always Bro

[Ty]

I Wannago Fish,

I think u are confusing "wild" and "native". Which is ok cause everyone gets a lit'l confused about that stuff.

So, out of the gate all real aggresive hatchery fish are selected out of the raceways cause they die from stress! This is not nessisarily as much genetics as physiological and behavioral selection. These same traits make fish in the wild the most fit to survive.

Soooo, if you start with two identical genetics stocks, you will select the cream of the crop off with the most aggressive fish dieing in the raceways. Ironically these traits and behaviors make spawinging in the wild much more successful.

Hatchery fish are wild for the second half of there life, but regardless of there genetic origin...... they may act and be not near as aggressive as there closely related "native" cousins.

"Wild" fish are "Natives" as long as they are geneticslly isolated from hatchery stocks and have never been wiped out. Even if they have been if they are reproducing on there own and are "wild", they have the stuff and in my estimation are more "native" than "wild".

SO, silly as this agruement seems, hatchery fish are not "wild" unless they are reproducing and rearing on there own. Many studies have proven that many more wild fish are caught than hatchery that has alot to do with "wild" and "native" fish being much more aggressive than there "hatchery" caousins.

Just some simple ol'fish biuology to think about!

[drhall99]

I'd like to believe that the Natives will make a big enough comeback to allow sport harvest and eliminate the need for hatcheries. The broodstock program is a small step in the right direction.
D.

[Water Ready]

Ty
Do they always die from stress? Or do some make it through? Also, if 2 hatchery fish, that spawn, produce offspring, and are unable to be fin clipped, considered native/wild?

[baitslinger]

TY,

Thanks for the interesting perspective:
1)Are you a fish bio major at OSU?
2)Are you too busy fishing and bonking, and thats why you haven't graduated yet!! Ha ha keep up the good work, fishing is much funner than working!!

Stew,

Just tryin too yank your chain after one too many brewskis and my son's school meeting! But i do think we have a sort of double standard on native steelies? I mean, so many people preach no diver/ bait, but yet they go out and pull herring on a diver and gut hook native coho/chinook in the bays? Then they release them only too float on the surface? Why is a native steelie held to a higher level than a native coho/chinook? Because we created this double standard in our minds i think? I see nothing ethically wrong with taking a native steelie as long as run is healthy, but must agree with you that it may be best too practice C & R as much as possible. Unfortunately, the biggest threat i think is from habitat destruction that will only increase as humans increase. We are all blessed by the bountiful runs that mother nature has provided the last few years and all should be thankful!!!

[sparkleboy]

Originally posted by Stew:

I certainly hope not

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">Amen! Native steelhead belong in their home rivers, to spawn, not on anyone's table.

[ 01-22-2004, 11:23 PM: Message edited by: sparkleboy ]

[Salmonator]

So do native chinook and native sturgeon belong on our tables? If the fishery can sustain it then bonk away. If not, release 'em. Doesn't matter if we're talking bluegills or steelhead. I remember eating N. Santiam winter natives just before the regulation change. They all taste like chromer to me fin or no fin.

[Dinikin]

Originally posted by GOT2FISH:
Excusse my ignorance! But I have to ask will native Steel head ever reach a point were the will be kept. Or will they be over taken by hathery fish, I personaly feal you can tell the diffrence when you hook them I was woundering if they taste diffrent? Some may think this is a dumb question but I'm just woundering, and dont know who to ask.

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">Honestly, they made and making a table.
Did not you know about gilnetting above the dams.
I know you probably meant for fisherman with fishing poles.
Teoretically you have a chance to find out.
But I would only go as far a fighting and releasing that COOL stealhead.
Later.

[rob allen]

The question is why would anyone ever want to kep a wild steelhead??? There are enough hatchery steelhead in all parts of Oregon and Washington that no one should ever have any desire or need to kill a wild one. We currently have excessive opportunity to harvest salmon and hatchery steelhead. Killing a wild one even where it may be legal in my opinion is a bit selfish.. some fish are too valuable to be caught just once..
In the future maybe it will become legal to keep them but i think as sport anglers we need to choose not to the philosophy of catch and release allows there to be world class and highly productive fisheries all around the world.
Heck even the bubba boy bass fishermen down south figured that one out are they that much more forward thinking than us???

[ 01-23-2004, 09:51 AM: Message edited by: rob allen ]

[Tugjunkie]

For me, it's hard to think of not releasing a wild steelhead, I've only been at this a realtivley short time but most of the hatchery models give up & say eat me... the wild say.. NO WAY! I'm outta here! I love the high you get from the battle... win or lose.

If I live long enough for the runs of wild steelhead to come back to the point where the regs are changed.... that would be great... I would have the choice/opportunity to enjoy one at the table with friends, but even better, I'd have more wild steelhead to catch, admire & release..... and I'd be a 200yr old fisherman...

Keepem tight
Rick

[Jimmy Carl Black]

Kill EVERYTHING!!!

Just kidding. Wild steelhead, as freespool said, are already being tagged down south. IMHO, these fish don't and won't take that long to readjust to given conditions. That is as long as we can see fit to bring our meddling with the nature of nature to a lower level. Let nature do the gene selection and reel in the micro-managers. Fish stocks and their genetic codes will roam. We got all these salmonids (since the last glacial retreat about 10,000 years or so) from a common ancestor. Surely they have the built-in genetic ability and drive to repopulate our streams.

[rola76]

There are enough hatchery fish...we don't need to keep natives!! Plus, how many of us fish for survival purposes? Not me!!

I catch primarily for the sport, so I could care less. Plus, it sounds like some idiots keep natives anyways!!

[dla]

rob allen : Well I need to point out a little problem here - there aren't enough hatchery steelhead. Hatchery stocks show up all at once. They tend to congregate in certain areas.

Most fisherman are on the bank. Bank access is limited. Hatchery fish may congregate where there is no bank access (like the lower Wilson).

And of course some rivers lack a hatchery run altogether.

[Pete]

Let's focus on the issue here. With runs like they are today, killing wild steelhead isn't smart because the runs are small and as many fish as possible are necessary to preserve the runs. But the protections we've put in place, the habitat restoration we will hopefully do and the other issues that resolve will bring the runs back to strength. That's the reason we don't keep wild fish now. But if all our our efforts are successful, there may be a day when the runs are once again big and healthy. When we see that day, I think we'll again be able to keep wild fish. Probably not a complete lift of the protections we see now. It's likely that we'll see specific runs opened for a limited kill fishery - perhaps one or two fish per person per year. If run strength continues to grow to other stocks, they too could be opened.

But this is all speculative. We are not being successful at preserving or restoring habitat. Instead we are reducing available habitat and degrading the quality of much of what we have. We need complete, up to date basin and stock assessments, a long term vision of needs and the funding to get us there before we'll see much in the way of a wild fish kill fishery.

[Dragfreedrift]

Hey all you I-fishers....we have to realize that even if we restrict harvest entirely on wild fish, they will ALWAYS struggle unless we ALL work to improve habitat....in my view this is a bigger problem than all others combined. No habitat= no fish. We MUST keep our rivers and oceans clean and healthy.

I think the trends in this area are not real good and we really should be talking more about this.


Pete and I are in the same boat on this one for the most part.

HC

[ 01-23-2004, 01:54 PM: Message edited by: half canuck ]

[dla]

Pete : "wildfish kill fishery"? How come we "harvest" hatchery fish, but "kill" wild fish?

[Jimmy Carl Black]

While we're on the topic, write ODFW and whoever else to tell them to let the adipose-finned summers over the damn dam. Who's to say now isn't the time for a 'natural' summer run to pioneer the upper Clack.

[Banknit]

I was fishing on the umpqua last week and spoke to a couple of ODFW biologists on the subject of native fish. They are considering allowing catch and keep on that system and have a poll active on the subject. I was negative at first but they disclosed to me that true natives a far and few between now because at the hatcheries they dont finclip all the fish. This makes for many untrue natives in our rivers. They also said that there has been a lot of talk of clipping all returning fish since it is very difficult and time consuming trying to determine true natives from untrue fish. So after that conversation I now feel quite differently. R.C.

[fishbait]

I certanly hope that wild steelhead will once again grace my table as wild salmon do now. If we manage our streams better and do not seriously degrade the geene pool, hopefully someday we will no longer need hatcheries and keeping a wild/native fish just might not be an issue whatsoever. that is, if and when the runs are so strong that there is an overabundance. Would be nice of this happened in my lifetime, heck, would be nice if this just happened, but I won't hold my breath.

[Siwash]

My $.02 is pretty close to what most everyone else is saying... They're worth way more to me in the stream than they are on the table, so i've got no urge whatsoever to start bonking natives. However, if by some great turn of events we ever get to a point where the native populations are abundant enough to sustain themselves with no hatcheries anymore, and they can support us keeping a few without any harm to the health of the runs, then that would be the best of all worlds. Hard to be too optimistic I'll ever see that happen, though.

[Born to be Wild]

I missed this thread because I spent 5&1/2 days at the Puyallup Sportsman show and was without internet service or the time.
Just wanted to make a few comments pertaining to some of the post and issues.

Posted by Jimmy Carl Black:
While we're on the topic, write ODFW and whoever else to tell them to let the adipose-finned summers over the damn dam. Who's to say now isn't the time for a 'natural' summer run to pioneer the upper Clack.

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">Well Jimmy, when all the evidence starting piling up and the process of elimination pointed at the “un-natural” hatchery summers were possibly a cause for the downfall of the Clackamas wild winter steelhead, they were prevented from passing upstream of North Fork Reservoir back in 1999.
The current report by Kathern Kostow that I posted last year verified that concern.

So what do you want? Expensive hatchery summers that weren’t even natural or native to the Clack, or healthy native winters that we all used to catch and harvest? [img]graemlins/idea.gif[/img]

Summer run steelhead were never “natural” to the Clack!
Another man-made blunder!

Posted by Rob Allen:
The question is why would anyone ever want to keep a wild steelhead??? There are enough hatchery steelhead in all parts of Oregon and Washington that no one should ever have any desire or need to kill a wild one. We currently have excessive opportunity to harvest salmon and hatchery steelhead. Killing a wild one even where it may be legal in my opinion is a bit selfish.. some fish are too valuable to be caught just once..
In the future maybe it will become legal to keep them but i think as sport anglers we need to choose not to the philosophy of catch and release allows there to be world class and highly productive fisheries all around the world.
Heck even the bubba boy bass fishermen down south figured that one out are they that much more forward thinking than us???

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">Holy cow! Did I just read a pro-hatchery post by Rob Allen? [img]graemlins/eek13.gif[/img]
The reason you want to be able to harvest a wild steelhead Rob is so that you don’t need hatchery steelhead any longer!

A lot of folks are like myself and consider it a waste of time to C&R wild fish.
I personally feel like it is harassing the fish and it is not arguable that you are stressing out the fish and killing some.
To me it is like when my dog used to take after and chase people’s cats even though he didn’t harm them.
But after awhile I didn’t find it funny any more figuring the cat’s and their owner's wouldn’t appreciate it.

One of the options talked about on the Nestucca River was for a biologically sound harvest on wild winter steelhead.
But some folks insisted on starting a hatchery broodstock program there.

It makes more since to allow a consumptive fishery on wild fish rather than introduce another hatchery program (hatchery broodstock) that science has shown to suppress wild fish as does the domesticated hatchery fish.

UG:
Wouldn't it be grand if all the fish in the river were big, beautiful and wild? Wouldnt it be grand if the stocks were strong enough that sportfishers killing and keeping a few wouldnt harm the stock overall? I think we will get there, it may take a hundred years or so, but someday it would be neat to see natives make it to the table.

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">I agree with you there Brad but I don’t think it will take a hundred years or so.
Look at the OCN’s and the way they have come back from a mere 18,000-20,000 or so in the late 90’s and have rebounded to 300,000 in 2002 and probably around the same numbers in 2003.
Remember that the OCN’s are a rare success story and the reduction of hatchery coho on the Oregon coast was thought to help them recover and apparently it did.
I have been preaching this for some 7 or 8 years and guys like Bill Bakke have pointed this out for many more years than I.

Freespool:
They were on my table for over 30 years. Do I think they will be on it again? Yes they will,if we pay close attention to habitat,and fish management. 20 foot, high graded buffers are not going to cut the mustard,if native steelhead are ever going to be table fare in our lifetime.*

Rogue and Elk River already have native winter steelhead retention,it's 5 per year.

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">True and there are rivers in Washington, BC and Alaska that have harvest on wild winter steelhead also.
I agree with you Freespool that 20 foot, high graded buffers are not going to cut the mustard.
But, there are rivers such as the Nestucca that could withstand harvest on wild winters presently and would unarguably do even better if the hatchery fish were eliminated from that basin.

drhall99
I'd like to believe that the Natives will make a big enough comeback to allow sport harvest and eliminate the need for hatcheries. The broodstock program is a small step in the right direction.
D.

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">Again drhall99, there is scientific information that hatchery broodstock fish suppress wild fish as do the domestic stocks.

There is a scientific report out by Mark Chilcote that showed in 12 different rivers that wild fish were negatively effected by both domestic and hatchery broodstock fish.

Show me a report that says otherwise and I will promote hatchery broodstock also.

Posted by Iwannago-fish':
Ty
Do they always die from stress? Or do some make it through? Also, if 2 hatchery fish, that spawn, produce offspring, and are unable to be fin clipped, considered native/wild?

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">Iwannago-fish',
No. Wild fish yes, native fish, no.

The hatchery & wild progeny can be identified by DNA as they were on the Clackamas River and the gene’s in that report were identified as coming from the non-native hatchery summers (Skamania stocks) and the native wild stocks along with the hatchery winter stocks.

Problem was the non-native hatchery steelhead were found to be naturally spawning more effectively than previously thought, but the natural spawning hatchery progeny (smolts) that were identified through DNA didn’t survive the wild which is a trend in hatchery fish.

So the hatchery summer fishery was very rewarding to those that fished them but believed to cause the decline in the wild native Clackamas winter steelhead because the earlier spawning hatchery summers were out-competing the later spawning wild winters in the spawning gravel and rearing habitat.

Science has shown us for some 20 years or so that domesticated hatchery fish are not as successful at spawning in the wild and that their progeny do not survive well in the wild either and so far we have been fortunate that there has not been serious cross-breeding between the hatchery and wild stocks in some rivers because of the run/spawn timing.
Now we are playing with fire once again now that we are experimenting with “hatchery broodstock” that return and spawn at the same time as their wild cousins. :shocked:

Continued below...

[Born to be Wild]

Posted by baitslinger:
But i do think we have a sort of double standard on native steelies? I mean, so many people preach no diver/ bait, but yet they go out and pull herring on a diver and gut hook native coho/chinook in the bays? Then they release them only too float on the surface? Why is a native steelie held to a higher level than a native coho/chinook?

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">There is a double standard on native steelies.
Some of the fishermen that preach they are against retention of wild steelies are no doubt harvesting or “killing” wild Chinook.
To me it would like saying it is OK to kill a wild bull elk but it is a sin to kill the much more evasive wild blacktail buck.

Maybe it has to do with the healthier wild Chinook stocks we have gotten used to harvesting and the C&R fishing on the less healthy steelhead stocks?

Good question and a good topic for a thread.

Posted by Sparkleboy:
Amen! Native steelhead belong in their home rivers, to spawn, not on anyone's table.

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">OK Sparkleboy, I hope I don’t to see you bonking anymore of them wild nooks! :grin:

Posted by Salmonator:
So do native chinook and native sturgeon belong on our tables? If the fishery can sustain it then bonk away. If not, release 'em. Doesn't matter if we're talking bluegills or steelhead. I remember eating N. Santiam winter natives just before the regulation change. They all taste like chromer to me fin or no fin.

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">BBQ’ed wild chrome! Sounds appetizing to me. :grin:
Good thing these guy’s don’t fish rockfish.
They would probably be preaching the bonking of black’s, but releasing the glorified ling’s!

Posted by Jimmy Carl Black:

Kill EVERYTHING!!!

Just kidding. Wild steelhead, as freespool said, are already being tagged down south. IMHO, these fish don't and won't take that long to readjust to given conditions. That is as long as we can see fit to bring our meddling with the nature of nature to a lower level. Let nature do the gene selection and reel in the micro-managers. Fish stocks and their genetic codes will roam. We got all these salmonids (since the last glacial retreat about 10,000 years or so) from a common ancestor. Surely they have the built-in genetic ability and drive to repopulate our streams.

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">“Let nature do the gene selection”
I agree with you 100% JCB! [img]graemlins/applause.gif[/img]

Posted by Fishbait:
I certanly hope that wild steelhead will once again grace my table as wild salmon do now. If we manage our streams better and do not seriously degrade the geene pool, hopefully someday we will no longer need hatcheries and keeping a wild/native fish just might not be an issue whatsoever. that is, if and when the runs are so strong that there is an overabundance. Would be nice of this happened in my lifetime, heck, would be nice if this just happened, but I won't hold my breath.

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">I think that was a great post Fishbait but I don’t think you will have to hold your breath as long as the wild fish out of water that are C&R’ed and pictured on ifish! :shocked:
Sorry, just my opinion.


[quote]
Posted by Siwash:
My $.02 is pretty close to what most everyone else is saying... They're worth way more to me in the stream than they are on the table, so i've got no urge whatsoever to start bonking natives. However, if by some great turn of events we ever get to a point where the native populations are abundant enough to sustain themselves with no hatcheries anymore, and they can support us keeping a few without any harm to the health of the runs, then that would be the best of all worlds. Hard to be too optimistic I'll ever see that happen, though.

Another great post Siwash and you will see it happen!

Posted by Rolla 76
There are enough hatchery fish...we don't need to keep natives!! Plus, how many of us fish for survival purposes? Not me!!

I catch primarily for the sport, so I could care less. Plus, it sounds like some idiots keep natives anyways!!

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">Keep which natives?
Actually Rolla, in some situations there are too many hatchery fish and as someone posted they are not spread out like the nates and other than the detrimental stray’s, they end up at one point of the river.

The hatcheries normally meet their escapement needed for egg take and for the most part the excess hatchery fish goes to waste.
And then you have to consider what damage all those hatchery fish did to the wild fish in areas where the habitat is fish friendly.

Most of us don’t fish or keep a fish for survival purposes, but for the enjoyment or rewards of being successful and giving fish away to others that do not or cannot fish themselves.

Posted by dla:
rob allen : Well I need to point out a little problem here - there aren't enough hatchery steelhead. Hatchery stocks show up all at once. They tend to congregate in certain areas.

Most fisherman are on the bank. Bank access is limited. Hatchery fish may congregate where there is no bank access (like the lower Wilson).

And of course some rivers lack a hatchery run altogether.

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">Couldn’t have said it better dla!
What was once a great natural fishery is what we need to strive for once again.
That includes good habitat and no artificial fish!

Dano

[Born to be Wild]

Posted by Pete:
Let's focus on the issue here. With runs like they are today, killing wild steelhead isn't smart because the runs are small and as many fish as possible are necessary to preserve the runs. But the protections we've put in place, the habitat restoration we will hopefully do and the other issues that resolve will bring the runs back to strength. That's the reason we don't keep wild fish now. But if all our our efforts are successful, there may be a day when the runs are once again big and healthy. When we see that day, I think we'll again be able to keep wild fish. Probably not a complete lift of the protections we see now. It's likely that we'll see specific runs opened for a limited kill fishery - perhaps one or two fish per person per year. If run strength continues to grow to other stocks, they too could be opened.

But this is all speculative. We are not being successful at preserving or restoring habitat. Instead we are reducing available habitat and degrading the quality of much of what we have. We need complete, up to date basin and stock assessments, a long term vision of needs and the funding to get us there before we'll see much in the way of a wild fish kill fishery.

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">That was another good post Pete.
But I disagree with you on your opinion of “smart”.
Some of the wild steelhead stocks aren’t necessarily small and can withstand harvest.
But as long as we fishermen have the mindset of pumping in more hatchery domestic and broodstock smolts, we most likely won’t see the rebound of wild steelhead that we all desire.

Part of the reason that we don’t keep wild steelhead now is because some folks believe we need to have hatchery steelhead that are proven to suppress those wild steelhead.
You cannot deny the facts that hatchery fish suppress wild fish and that is acknowledged worldwide.

So we need to get away from hatchery fish and make improvements in habitat restoration and better improved logging/forestry practices.

Posted by Half Canuck:
Hey all you I-fishers....we have to realize that even if we restrict harvest entirely on wild fish, they will ALWAYS struggle unless we ALL work to improve habitat....in my view this is a bigger problem than all others combined. No habitat= no fish. We MUST keep our rivers and oceans clean and healthy.

I think the trends in this area are not real good and we really should be talking more about this.


Pete and I are in the same boat on this one for the most part.

HC

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">Hey Half Canuck, you’re right; No habitat= no fish!
Also good habitat and massive hatchery fish=poor too mediocre wild fish.
Also good habitat and zero hatchery fish=healthy wild fish.

Yes ocean and freshwater conditions (El ‘Nino/good ocean conditions and drought/good fresh water conditions) make a difference, but if you have poor habitat and/or negative hatchery influence, it doesn’t make a difference and you will most likely not achieve the desired result!

Posted by dla:
Pete : "wildfish kill fishery"? How come we "harvest" hatchery fish, but "kill" wild fish?

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">A choice of words “intentional” or “unintentional” appears to be slanted.
Do they (fishermen) have some special abilities that never kill the wild fish when they C&R?
What I have personally observed on the rivers and have read, suggest not.

Posted by Banknit:
I was fishing on the umpqua last week and spoke to a couple of ODFW biologists on the subject of native fish. They are considering allowing catch and keep on that system and have a poll active on the subject. I was negative at first but they disclosed to me that true natives a far and few between now because at the hatcheries they dont finclip all the fish. This makes for many untrue natives in our rivers. They also said that there has been a lot of talk of clipping all returning fish since it is very difficult and time consuming trying to determine true natives from untrue fish. So after that conversation I now feel quite differently. R.C.

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">This makes absolutely no sense to me and possibly you are confused in what the bio’s told you.
Were they bio’s you talked to on the river or possibly stream surveyor’s.
Unless they have had some hatchery broodstock fish on the Umpqua, they have probably not done much interbreeding as is the case on the Clackamas River.
I believe the Umpqua does indeed have a healthy run of wild winters.

What would be the purpose of clipping returning fish?
Unless it was some kind of study to see where these hatchery fish were straying, etc., it doesn’t make any sense to me.
Besides that the hatchery smolts are fin clipped before they are released.


Many wild fish harvest options are in the loop presently including steelhead, coho and cutthroat trout and it is just a matter of time.
This is good news and what we all should strive for.

Oregon still supports the Oregon Plan and Oregonian’s are doing an incredible job of managing their wild fish.

Again these are just my opinions and mine alone based on the science I have read and heard over the last 7 years or so since I have been seeking answers.

Dano

[Wood N' Fish]

Dano you must not like to fish eh? If we cut back on hatchery fish, do you suppose the NMFS would raise the impacts to enable us to soak a line? Don't think so-------

[sparkleboy]

Dan,
If you can believe it, I've never killed a chinook, wild or hatchery. The only salmonids I've ever killed are hatchery steelhead. :smile:
At the current time, there is not a need to keep a wild steelhead. If we can see runs of wild fish where hatchery fish current are at, then I'd almost certianly change my opinion, but I would extremely limit my retention of steelhead. At the current moment, when I see a fish with an adipose, it's worth more than gold to me. And I'm not just talking steelhead, other salmonids, as well. There are some areas that currently can support a wild retention program. However, if you close every hatchery, and close former hatchery streams to retention of wild steelhead, think of how many people are going to crowd to those "1 Wild Steelhead per day/5 per year." It would be absolutely devestating to those runs.

[ 01-27-2004, 08:06 PM: Message edited by: sparkleboy ]

[rob allen]

DLA.. There are plenty of hatchery fish everywhere! Expeciting to have fish at your disposal 24-7 -365 is a bit unrealistic and selfish. If you want hatchery fish to take home then be there when and where they are there is tons of opportunity for that by both boat and bank anglers..
Here is an example within one hour of Portland

you start your year catching hatchery steelhead on the Wilson.. There are tons of posts here on I fish of people catching hatchery stelhead from the Wilson river on the bank!!
maybe every other weekend you go up to the necanicum or north nehalem or even the trask where last winter I hooked two hatchery steelhead in a day and saw others on the bank. That lasts for all of January and into Feb.
You might argue that there'd be a lull of a few weeks before you can start catching springers in the Columbia even from the bank and that opportunity lasts well into April or may and by that time there are hatchery springers in quite a few river accessible by foot not to mention plenty of early summer steelhead in rivers such as the Sandy and Clack.
Then through out may and june there are excellent opportunities through out the region for hatchery summer steelhead and continued opportunity for spring chinook. When August arived the Deschutes kicks in with massive opportunity to harvest summer steelhead. Then comes september ,october and november throughout which chinook and coho create massive harvest opportunity all over the place and hot on the heels of thoes runs comes the first winter steelhead..
We have massive opportunities to harvest hatchery fish at almost any time you could possibly want to..

Dan my point wasn't to be pro hatchery but to demonstrate that there is no need for anyone to ever harvest a wild fish.
I think sportfishing on the west coast would be best served with an end to all hatcheries and catch and release regulations on all species everwhere.. Most areas where world class fisheries thrive the anglers do this by choice. it seems that we salmon and steelhead anglers are the knuckle dragging neanderthals who just have to kill things to justify our sport..

About habitat... The habitat is already filled to capacity!! With hatchery fish! thats why we have so few wild fish... The massive hordes of hatchery fish push the fewer wild fish into marginal habitat where they don't survive well. Why is that hard to understand??? rearing habitat is equally or even more important than clean spawning gravel!!!

[Born to be Wild]

Sparkleboy,

You bring up some interesting points but I never said close every hatchery and that is not my desire or goal.
Where there is habitat, lack of dams, lack of gill netters for example on the Oregon coast, most hatchery programs are not needed and in fact can be counter productive.

The OCN's are a perfect example of that.
We cranked up the big hatchery programs in the 70's and the wild coho did a nose dive.
Of course the commercial harvest of upwards of 80% of the runs allowing only 20% escapement was a major player in their decline also.

In the mid to late 90's we decreased the wild coho smolts by the millions.
The OCN's have rebounded to numbers we have not seen for 50 years or so and that was prior to the big hatchery programs.

Now there are more wild coho than there were hatchery and wild coho combined in the big hatchery years of the 70's through the 90's.
Coincidence?
I don't think so.

We ended the hatchery chinook programs on the central coast (Siletz, Yaquina, Alsea, Siusalaw, etc.) where some rivers had hatchery chinook and some didn't.
They are the healthiest chinook runs on the coast, some believed to be at historic levels and on a steady upward incline the last 12 years or so.

The north coast rivers (Tillamook basin and Nestucca) are experiencing a bit of problems where they have been on a steady decline during that same time span.
They have hatchery chinook programs that aren't even necessary for the fisheries.
Coincidence?
I don't think so.

Do you think we should load up the central coast rivers with hatchery chinook and see if they follow persuit of the north coast rivers and decline?

As I posted the Nestucca River has had 10,000+ winter returns in recent years and with a 20% harvest that leaves plenty to spawn.
Instead the broodstock program was chosen by popular demand by folks in the fishing business and they are known to supress wild steelhead as do the domestic hatchery stocks and raise a big concern of cross breeding and loss of vital genetics in the wild steelhead.

Do you think that was a smart move?
We had control of the health of the stocks with wild harvest and reduced hatchery or no hatchery fish.
Now we might have created another blunder.
We do not need hatchery steelhead in the Nestucca.

"At the current time, there is not a need to keep a wild steelhead".

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">That's about the same statement that Rob Allen said.
There is the need to start harvesting wild steelhead and phase out the hatchery fish in those same rivers that have the healthy runs.
Non harvest of wild fish creates the need for the problematic and expensive hatchery fish.

"At the current moment, when I see a fish with an adipose, it's worth more than gold to me. And I'm not just talking steelhead, other salmonids, as well".

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">I respect that opinion of yours and to each their own, but a lot of fishermen are harvesting wild fish already and don't have a problem with it.

It wasn't that many years ago that the hatchery steelhead were fin clipped and it would be my guess that most NW anglers were eating wild steelhead because you couldn't identify if the fish you caught was one or the other especially in January when the two runs overlap.

There are some areas that currently can support a wild retention program. However, if you close every hatchery, and close former hatchery streams to retention of wild steelhead, think of how many people are going to crowd to those "1 Wild Steelhead per day/5 per year." It would be absolutely devestating to those runs.

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">Again I or nobody else was talking of closing every hatchery.
That would be great if we could but until habitat is restored, dams and gil netters are eliminated, we can not do with out some hatcheries.

And I believe if you talk to your biologist friends you will find that you are wrong on that last statement and not only it would not be devasting to those runs, but that they could sustain the harvest.

I realize that there is a lot of fishing pressure these days and tackle has been refined but you just simply can't catch that many of them.
Besides, it appears that a lot of fishermen would practice C&R on this sacred species.

Dan

[Born to be Wild]

Dan my point wasn't to be pro hatchery but to demonstrate that there is no need for anyone to ever harvest a wild fish.
I think sportfishing on the west coast would be best served with an end to all hatcheries and catch and release regulations on all species everwhere.. Most areas where world class fisheries thrive the anglers do this by choice. it seems that we salmon and steelhead anglers are the knuckle dragging neanderthals who just have to kill things to justify our sport..

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">So with no hatcheries and only C&R on wilf fish that means we fishermen and non fishermen aren't going to eat fish or steelhead at least. :shocked:
Sorry, but I wouldn't even bother to fish if I can't keep one.

Like I said Rob, not every body is into C&R.
I go out and catch my 2 or 3 or 4 or 6 fish limit and I'm done.
I have no use to harass fish for the fun of it and besides it frees up room on our crowded rivers when you leave and leaves less sore-mouthed fish around to possibly bite someone else's bait.

About habitat... The habitat is already filled to capacity!! With hatchery fish! thats why we have so few wild fish... The massive hordes of hatchery fish push the fewer wild fish into marginal habitat where they don't survive well. Why is that hard to understand??? rearing habitat is equally or even more important than clean spawning gravel!!!

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">Well that is not to difficult to decipher, but is a little over simplified on the many negative ways hatchery fish supress the wild fish.

There is more than just you and I that know the damage they do.

Dano

[sparkleboy]

Dan, I'll reply again later to answer more of your questions directed to me (school work has me trapped!). But just to clarify, I know you didn't say close all hatcheries, all at once, but I was just giving a (very) theoritical example.

[rob allen]

yes Dan very oversimplified.. on purpose.. because most people think of habitat as clean spawning gravel and cool water but thats only for one very short period of a fish's life cycle
far more time is spent in rearing habitat.. Rearing habitat that is overwhelmed with 10's of thousands of hatchery offspring. Thats why wild chums are doing so much better. They migrate immediatly upon emerging they have no need for instream rearing habitat

As far as CnR vs catch and keep. I think that CnR if done properly has an extremely minimal impact on wild populations. B.C. has studied this very closely and has said basically the same thing. 1-3% mortality and I catch on average maybe 15 wild fish per year so it would take a few years to kill even one fish. CnR can ONLY be properly done with the use of single barbless hooks and artificial lures.

I guess I'd have to say that it's ok to harass a fish with hook and line and then release it.
If one day we had tons of wild fish and some harvest would be biologically feasible i suppose i wouldn't have a problem with people being allowed to retain a few. but given the number of anglers in the northwest it would have to be very few I per day 3 per year each must be from a different river or something like that. but even in that case there's be river that would soon be overharvested..

I see that we have 3 choices

1, continue relying on hatcheries and have it as we do now running the risk of losing most of our wild fish

2. rely on wild fish and have little or no harvest

3. rely on wild fish and have no fishing at all


PS Dan I agree with you whole heartedly about wild broodstocks.. There is no scientifically reason to believe they are any better for wild runs than regular hatchery fish. and potentially worse because of a more overlapping run timing..

[Uglygreen]

PS Dan I agree with you whole heartedly about wild broodstocks.. There is no scientifically reason to believe they are any better for wild runs than regular hatchery fish. and potentially worse because of a more overlapping run timing..

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">You are kidding right? No scientific evidence? - Most broodstock studies that I have read (3 or 4) have conclusions very similar to the following from the Hood River Broodstock program study. You know - the types of studies where they use real DNA testing and the scientific method instead of anicdotal evidence and tailgate biology like here on Ifish.

CONCLUSIONS

1. Fish from old hatchery stock consistently have very low fitness (usually less than 50% that of wild fish) when breeding in the wild. The fact that H(old stock) x W crosses consistently produce fewer offspring than W x W crosses (Table 4) suggests that having H(old stock) breeders in a system might lower the fitness of the wild population. Whether the surviving wildborn offspring of such crosses re-establish “wild” levels of fitness after one full generation of selection in nature remains to be tested.

2. Fish from new, conservation hatchery stock have fitness that is about equal to that of wild fish (less than wild in two years, greater than in the third year). The same pattern is apparent whether one examines the relative fitness of individual parents or that of pairs that left at least one offspring. The similar fitnesses H(new stock) x W and W x W pairs, suggests that having Hnew fish in the system is probably not obviously dragging down the fitness of the wild population for genetic reasons (as might have been expected under some models; e.g. Lynch and O’Hely, 2001). Thus, the conservation hatchery program appears to have added a demographic boost to the population without having obvious negative genetic consequences - at least in regards the effects of domestication selection and mutation accumulation that should occur in the hatchery. We have not yet conducted a formal analysis of the effect of the hatchery program on the effective size of the wild population (e.g. Ryman et al., 1995), but the high levels of microsatellite diversity we still observe in both runs suggest that reduced effective size is not a problem.

3. The surprisingly large number of missing parents, and the fact that most missing parents are fathers (Fig. 3), suggests that precocious parr or resident trout are obtaining matings that produce anadromous offspring. Alternate explanations for offspring that lack both parents include a large number of unclipped hatchery fish or wild strays entering the system.


Hood River Broodstock Study

UG

[Jimmy Carl Black]

So what do you want? Expensive hatchery summers that weren’t even natural or native to the Clack, or healthy native winters that we all used to catch and harvest?

Summer run steelhead were never “natural” to the Clack!
Another man-made blunder!

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

My point is that just because we have no CURRENT evidence to show that summer steelhead were never in the Clack, does not mean that they positively never were or shouldn't be in the future. What at one time is believed to be done for "the good of the species" or backed up by "good science" is later looked upon as ignorant policy.

At one time humans were not native to Oregon. Should we try to go back and stop evolution due to human blunders? Ecosystems constantly change and evolve with or without human intervention.

What I see in the policy of restricting UN-CLIPPED summer steelhead from traveling above N. Fork is a continued lack of respect for nature. I see it as extremely arrogant and ill-founded. We don't know what species will do best in the Clack's future and we sure as &*(% can't force it one way or the other. What we do know is that restoring natural ecosystem dynamics and disturbance regimes fosters healthier systems and that should mean more fish.

To answer the question of what I want:

I would say whatever the river wants which will more than likely include a removal of the dams, restoration of the natural flood regime, a healthier run of winter steelhead and possibly even a native summer, spring, fall run of slime rockets. I don't buy for one second that in the course of the Clackamas river's natural history there has never been a wild summer steelhead pair to spawn.

Coming back down to the human scale of things and our self-created time scale, I say let the best fish win in the upper river. Let environmental pressures decide which genes are best-suited to the Clack, not Kathern Kostow (all due respect to the research but it should not dictate policy, keep in mind that a particular research project is but a snapshot in time and very few long-term research projects exist).

Good points on this whole thread Dan. I just personally disagree with this one issue about humans continuing to interfere with natural genetic flow. You can blame Richard Dawkins ('The Selfish Gene')if you want.

JCB

[cosmo]

Wow BTBW,
Couldn't it simply be that in the 70's and 80's we harvested coho in the ocean at record levels with no respect for wild fish. Round about the same time that ended, ocean conditions took a serious nosedive through most of the 90's and now have returned to favorable conditions, bringing coho back with them. Maybe you're placing a scapegoat into the mix that fits your argument.

If there were no hatchery fish ever present on the coast and the same harvest rates and ocean patterns were placed on those wild fish only, wouldn't the population curve look the same?

The largest negative consequence hatchery coho had on wild coho was that harvest rates in the ocean (sport and commercial) were set per hatchery fish abundance without regard to wild stocks. That has ended, in fact, it ended over a decade ago. And now that shift in management (not hatchery fish) has lead to the prosperity of wild coho, along with the benefits of habitat improvement and ocean conditions.

[glassblower]

Originally posted by dla:
rob allen : Well I need to point out a little problem here - there aren't enough hatchery steelhead. Hatchery stocks show up all at once. They tend to congregate in certain areas.

Most fisherman are on the bank. Bank access is limited. Hatchery fish may congregate where there is no bank access (like the lower Wilson).

And of course some rivers lack a hatchery run altogether.

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">I aggree, even if you do bring your own rock to stand on to fish for the hatchery fish accsess is so limited that most of the time you have no place to sit the rock you brought along to stand on. Go up river past the hatcherys and there is NO ONE fishing, Why? because you can not keep the fish cause the are all native and whats the point if you are blowing all this cash to fish and can not eat them. And like he said, most rivers have NO hatchery run at all. If all the rivers had a good hatchery run and the hatcherys were farther up stream to allow more accsess to get them it would not be so bad. As it is rivers with hatchery fish are limited, bank access is even more limited.

[ 01-28-2004, 11:41 AM: Message edited by: glassblower ]

[willametteriveroutlaw]

GlassBlower,
With all due respect, there are rivers where the keeping of native steelhead that I have released nates on, and seen many others do that too.

[Uglygreen]

If there were no hatchery fish ever present on the coast and the same harvest rates and ocean patterns were placed on those wild fish only, wouldn't the population curve look the same?

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">[img]graemlins/applause.gif[/img]

Cosmo

Interestingly enough there are rivers that have never had hatchery plants (only wild fish) and the population curve is similar.

Of course Dan is now going to tell you some version of:

"That is because the competetion from the massive numbers of hatchery fish dumped in the ocean from other rivers for limited feed (especally during poor ocean conditions)caused the wild population to crash."

It will still be the fault of the hatcheries.

IMHO - it is much more complex than that with 4 major factors being 1) Freshwater Habitat, 2) Ocean conditions, 3) Harvest levels, 4) Hatchery influence.

UG

PS - Dan knows that I disagree with him on this and think his position is oversimplified and kinda nutty, but I still think he is a great person with a lot more concern for the fish populations than the average angler. We will probably argue the point till one of us is dead. (and i'm like 20 years younger - HAHA)



[ 01-28-2004, 03:13 PM: Message edited by: Uglygreen ]

[boater]

Originally posted by sparkleboy:

At the current time, there is not a need to keep a wild steelhead.

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">ok, then why is it ok to have a targeted catch and release season on a run of wild steelhead that is barely meeting escapment ?, the skagit river up here in washington was 100 fish over escapment, why was it ok to have a targeted cnr season on them last year ? how can you rebuild a run of fish when people are out harrasing runs that are barely meeting escapment ?, why dont the people who dont want other people to bonk wild fish ever say anything about raising the number of fish over escapment before a targeted cnr season happens ?

[sparkleboy]

Boater,
First, I am not famaliar with the Skagit or surround rivers, so lend me leeway in that respect.
If there is indeed a run of barely 100 wild steelhead, then I feel the stream should be closed to all angling.
Unless, 100 wild steelhead is what the "historical" high was. If the historical high is 100 fish, then they've apparently had to trouble maintaining a run. I highly doubt this is the case, however.
Where did you get your information the river has a run of approximately 100 wild fish? There are two problems with this figure. First, it's impossible to calculate the number of wild fish on a stream, unless there is a trap or fish ladder at the very beginning of the stream, and it is monitored around the clock.
Secondly, if WDFW thought there was a serious concern for mortality of fish on that river due to catch and release, I am sure they would close the stream to angling.
Just out of curiosity, how many people fish the river, and how big is it? I'm thinking it's probably a very unpopular destination due to the small chance of actually catching a steelhead, especially if the river is large.
Unless you can show me direct data showing catch and release practices directly negativly effect wild fish populations on that river, I have no problem with the current practices.

[sparkleboy]

Originally posted by Born to be Wild:
Sparkleboy,

You bring up some interesting points but I never said close every hatchery and that is not my desire or goal.

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">I did not mean to sound as if I said you stated your goal was to close every hatchery. I was just using it as an example.

Do you think we should load up the central coast rivers with hatchery chinook and see if they follow persuit of the north coast rivers and decline?

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">No, like you pointed out, hatcheries and are unneeded to support a catch and retain program on these fisheries.
Although it might be interesting to start a hatchery program for chinook and see what exactly happens regarding the wild run.

As I posted the Nestucca River has had 10,000+ winter returns in recent years and with a 20% harvest that leaves plenty to spawn.
Instead the broodstock program was chosen by popular demand by folks in the fishing business and they are known to supress wild steelhead as do the domestic hatchery stocks and raise a big concern of cross breeding and loss of vital genetics in the wild steelhead.

Do you think that was a smart move?

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">Do I think moving from the Alsea stock fish to the native Nestucca broodstock fish was a smart move? Absolutely. I don't have any studies to back the following statement up, but I'm sure I could get them if I needed them: Broodstock steelhead have a lesser negative effect on wild steelhead than do hatchery stock.
Now, regarding dumping in hatchery fish. I look at the Nestucca, and it gives me an example of how hatchery and wild fish can partially coexist with each other, while the native run of steelhead is able to thrive. It is strictly my opinion that if the wild run can support stress from hatchery fish and still manage 10000 returning adults each year, then hatchery fish are not a problem. What is the "historical high" of wild winter steelhead on the Nestucca? If the current number is at or above the "historical high" then why should we remove the hatchery fish? To see how high the wild run can get?

...a lot of fishermen are harvesting wild fish already and don't have a problem with it.

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">I don't have a problem with anglers killing wild chinook were the runs can support it. I don't have a problem with anglers killing wild steelehad where the runs can support it, it's just not something I'm going to be participating in.

And I believe if you talk to your biologist friends you will find that you are wrong on that last statement and not only it would not be devasting to those runs, but that they could sustain the harvest.

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">Ok, let me attempt to explain my statement somewhat more clearly. What I was trying to say, is that if we close all hatcheries, right now, and at the same time close those streams that had previously had hatchery fish on them to steelhead retention, then the streams that currently have a wild steelhead retention program will see a huge amount of wild fish taken by anglers. People want to eat fish. Most people will fish where they can keep something. There are very few streams in Oregon that have a wild steelhead retention program, and there are sure as heck a ton of anglers out there.

Just to say it, the above is only my opinion. But, until my opinions are proven wrong, I will continue to believe they are factual.

*Whew*

[boater]

sparkleboy, i said the run was 100 fish over escapment, not a run of 100 fish. this run of fish was 100 fish over the escapment goal of 6000 fish and the state let the "targeted catch and release season" happen.

as far as providing you with info that shows that "targeted cacth and release" seasons harm fish ?, i dont have to, there has to be fish available for harvest to have a "targeted catch and release" season.

here os the news release from last year,

NEWS RELEASE
WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE
600 Capitol Way North, Olympia, WA 98501-1091

February 12, 2003
Contact: Bob Leland, (360) 902-2817


Low steelhead returns force March 1 fishing closures on
Skagit, Snohomish, Stillaguamish and Puyallup rivers

OLYMPIA - Anticipated poor returns of wild steelhead to the Skagit, Snohomish, Stillaguamish and Puyallup river systems have prompted the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) to close all or parts of the streams to fishing, effective March 1.

"The continued low numbers of returning wild steelhead to these Puget Sound streams is of serious concern to WDFW and tribal co-managers, and closing the rivers to fishing will provide maximum protection for weak wild stocks," said Bob Leland, WDFW's steelhead program manager.

The Skagit River from the mouth upstream to the Memorial Highway Bridge (Hwy. 536 at Mt. Vernon) will close to all fishing between March 1 and March 31. The area will open April 1 for fishing for trout, Dolly Varden and other game fish under selective gear rules, and fishing from a motorized vessel will be allowed.

The stretch of river from the Memorial Highway Bridge at Mt. Vernon upstream to the Dalles bridge at Concrete, including Fisher Slough from its mouth upstream to the Hwy. 530 bridge, will also close March 1.

Leland said the preseason forecast for returning Skagit River wild winter steelhead is 6,100 fish, which is slightly more than the wild spawning requirement of 6,000 fish. Since escapement is predicted to be slightly above the goal, the catch-and-release fishing season on the Skagit and Sauk rivers will occur as outlined in the "Fishing in Washington" 2002/03 rules pamphlet.

The Snohomish, Stillaguamish and Puyallup systems will close to all fishing March 1, except for the sport sturgeon fishery in the Snohomish River downstream of the Highway 2 bridge, and the Stillaguamish River mainstem downstream of the Warm Beach-Stanwood Highway.

Leland said preseason forecasts for wild steelhead for the Snohomish, Stillaguamish and Puyallup river systems are well below each system's spawning objective of 6,500, 950 and 2,000 fish, respectively.

[sparkleboy]

Well, first of all, it appears that WDFW is very much "on the ball" when it comes to these rivers and anglers harassing the fish, so that should provide you with at least some relief.
In your opinion, how many fish over escapement should the run be to open the river(s) to catch and release?

as far as providing you with info that shows that "targeted cacth and release" seasons harm fish ?, i dont have to, there has to be fish available for harvest to have a "targeted catch and release" season.

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">We're talking about catch and relase here, not harvest. What I was asking for is information regarding the effects of catch and release on wild steelhead.

Two more questions for you:

1. How many people fish these rivers? Or, restated, how much fishing pressure do they receive?
2. Do you fish any of these rivers?

[Born to be Wild]

Bradly, I think maybe you are over simplifying it.
Here's some quotes from a world renowned wildlife biologist:

"Ecosystems are not only more complex than we think, they're more complex than we can think."
Jack Ward Thomas, wildlife biologist, former FS Chief


"I think it's a mistake for people to think science solves problems. It merely contributes information that
may be useful in their solution. There are no scientific decisions in a democracy; there are only moral
decisions." - Jack Ward Thomas, Chief, US Forest Service (1994)


"There is no final ecological truth. All knowledge is a current
approximation, and each addition to that knowledge is but a
small, incremental step toward understanding."
Jack Ward Thomas, wildlife biologist, former FS Chief




Here's an abstract from a report by Mark Chilcote.
It doesn't state in the abstract that some of these 12 populations were broodstock but the report itself does.

Relationship between natural productivity and the frequency of wild fish in mixed spawning populations of wild and hatchery steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss)

Mark W. Chilcote

Abstract: The proportion of wild fish in 12 mixed populations of hatchery and wild steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss) was evaluated for its relationship to mean and intrinsic measures of population productivity.
The population mean of ln(recruits/spawner) was used to represent mean productivity.
Intrinsic productivity was represented by values for the Ricker a parameter as estimated from fits of spawner and recruit data.
Significant regressions were found between both measures of productivity and the proportion of wild fish in the spawning population (Pw).
The slopes of the two regressions were not significantly different and defined a relationship suggesting that a spawning population comprised of equal numbers of hatchery and wild fish would produce 63% fewer recruits per spawner than one comprised entirely of wild fish.
Study findings were not sensitive to likely levels of data error or confounded by extraneous habitat correlation with Pw.
Population status assessments and conservation monitoring efforts should include Pw as a critical variable.
For natural populations, removal rather than addition of hatchery fish may be the most effective strategy to improve productivity and resilience.

http://pubs.nrc-cnrc.gc.ca/cgi-bin/r...s_nf_cjfas9-03

You are taking and using one report for your basis to justify hatchery broodstock when there are many reports out that show they are detrimental to wild fish also.
I didn't see anything in the Hood River Broodstock report that stated no negative effects on wild stocks and that it stated; "We have not yet conducted a formal analysis…"

History has shown that hatchery fish do not work and there is no long term sustainability with using them.

I use trends and the trends for rivers with both wild and hatchery fish domestic or broodstock show reduced production of wild fish.
Nutty or not, that's the trends with hatchery fish.

You have to come to the realizization that we cannot reproduce nature.
All we do is screw things up when we try and improve upon it.

Here's a few quotes off of Bill Bakke's site:

DIVERGENCE IN FIRST GENERATION HATCHERY FISH


1) Reisenbichler, R. R. 1994. Genetic factors contributing to declines of

anadromous salmonids in the Pacific Northwest. D. Stouder, Peter Bisson,

and R. Naiman (eds.) In: Pacific Salmon And Their Ecosystems. Chapman

Hall, Inc.


"Gene flow from hatchery fish also is deleterious because hatchery

populations genetically adapt to the unnatural conditions of the hatchery

environment at the expense of adaptedness for living in natural streams.

This domestication is significant even in the first generation of hatchery

rearing."


2) Jonsson, Bror, and Ian A. Fleming. 1993. Enhancement of wild salmon

populations. G. Sundnes ed.) Human impact on self-recruiting populations,

an international symposium. Kongsvoll, Norway, Tapit, Trondheim, Norway.


"Thus, the use of supplementation to enhance populations should be

carefully considered, even when only a single generation boost to a

population seems warranted.

" Differences were evident for hatchery Atlantic salmon relative to wild

salmon, with common genetic backgrounds, in breeding success after a single

generation in the hatchery. Hatchery females averaged 80% of the breeding

success of wild females and hatchery males averaged 65% of the breeding

success of wild males."


3) Reisenbichler, RR. 1996. The risks of hatchery supplementation. The

Osprey. Issue 27. June 1996.


"Available data suggest progressively declining fitness for natural rearing

with increasing generations in the hatchery. The reduction in survival from

egg to adult may be about 25% after one generation in the hatchery and 85%

after six generations. Reductions in survival from yearling to adult may be

about 15% after one generation in the hatchery, and 67% after many generations."


4) Verspoor, Eric. 1988. Reduced genetic variability in first generation

hatchery populations of Atlantic salmon. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. Vol. 45,

1988.


"Mean heterozygosity and number of alleles per locus were positively

correlated with effective number of adults (N) used to establish the

hatchery groups and averaged 26 % and 12 % lower, respectively, than wild

stocks. The observations are consistent with a loss of genetic variability

in the hatchery salmon from random drift caused by using small numbers of

salmon for broodstock.

"More hatchery groups appeared to be monomorphic than did wild stocks.

"Hatchery samples were 50% larger than those from the wild introducing a

bias in favor of detecting alleles in the hatchery groups compared with the

wild stocks. Thus the differences is probably underestimated.

"There is a loss of alleles in the hatchery groups with lower Ne (effective

breeding population numbers) values.

"Theory suggest that most genetic variability will be preserved if

Ne of the broodstock is &gt; 50.

"Losses of genetic variability can occur even in the first hatchery

generation if numbers of fish used for broodstock are not sufficient. The

average reductions in variability detected here are the same as those found

in salmon maintained in hatcheries for a number of generations. Stahl found

levels of heterozygosity to be 20% lower in Swedish hatchery salmon."


5) Waples, Robin. Dispelling some myths about hatcheries. February 1999.

The American Fisheries Society. Fisheries Vol. 24. No. 2.


"In the Tucannon River in southeastern Washington, a (hatchery)

supplementation program for the depressed run of spring chinook salmon (O.

tshawytscha) was initiated in the mid-1980s. Founded with local broodstock,

this program aims to maintain genetic integrity of the natural population

and has a strong research and evaluation component. In spite of these

efforts, data for the early 1990s showed that, compared to the natural

adults, returning hatchery fish were younger, were smaller for the same age,

and had lower fecundity for the same size (Burgert et al. 1992). The

underlying causes of these somewhat surprising phenotypic changes are not

known; however, even if the changes were entirely an environmental response

to hatchery conditions, they still would represent a significant

single-generation reduction in productivity of the population."

[Born to be Wild]

Wow BTBW,
Couldn't it simply be that in the 70's and 80's we harvested coho in the ocean at record levels with no respect for wild fish. Round about the same time that ended, ocean conditions took a serious nosedive through most of the 90's and now have returned to favorable conditions, bringing coho back with them. Maybe you're placing a scapegoat into the mix that fits your argument.

If there were no hatchery fish ever present on the coast and the same harvest rates and ocean patterns were placed on those wild fish only, wouldn't the population curve look the same?

The largest negative consequence hatchery coho had on wild coho was that harvest rates in the ocean (sport and commercial) were set per hatchery fish abundance without regard to wild stocks. That has ended, in fact, it ended over a decade ago. And now that shift in management (not hatchery fish) has lead to the prosperity of wild coho, along with the benefits of habitat improvement and ocean conditions.

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">Exactly, but the curve wouldn’t have been the same if the wild coho wouldn’t have suffered the ill effects of those millions of hatchery coho dumped in their back yards.

And as you stated the wild coho wouldn’t have been over fished by the commercial fleet if we hadn’t have had all those un-marked hatchery fish out there to begin with.

As I have stated many times on this site it is believed that the decline of the OCN’s was due to over harvest and compounded by big hatchery coho programs.

We haven’t seen numbers like this in 50 years and I don’t know if the large commercial fleets were over harvesting them back then.
That probably occurred in the 70’s when the massive hatchery operations kicked in.
That’s when the big steady decline started.

Again I’m blaming both hatcheries and over harvest for the decline.

Dan

[boater]

Originally posted by sparkleboy:
We're talking about catch and relase here, not harvest.

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">sparkleboy, to have a targeted catch and release season there has got to be excess fish in the system to have it, try not to confuse that with the term "wild steelhead release", they are not the same.

do i fish the skagit durring a targeted catch and release season, no, i dont fish any targeted catch and release seasons.

[glassblower]

I would be willing to bet that besides everyone saying they would never kill a native steelhead that if it were made legal to harvest them 99.9% of the fish landed would get the club.

[Jimmy Carl Black]

Wow!
You know your stuff. You still rock fish fishing from the rocks off Depoe ever? If you're ever looking for company, I'd love to learn (how to work that fishery that is) and hear some more of your theories on the wild fish topics.

Ciao

This thread has gone way beyond the scope of my attention for the time being.

[sparkleboy]

[quote]Originally posted by boater:

sparkleboy, to have a targeted catch and release season there has got to be excess fish in the system to have it, try not to confuse that with the term "wild steelhead release", they are not the same.

do i fish the skagit durring a targeted catch and release season, no, i dont fish any targeted catch and release seasons.

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">Maybe the concept of targeted catch and release is different in Oregon and Washington. There are a few small streams that I know do not have a large or (in my opinion) strong run of steelhead, yet I still fish (catch and release) for them. The stream is open for a period of about 5 months, but the regulations say open to "adipose fin-clipped steelhead only." Well, I know there are no hatchery steelhead on these streams, so that suggests the streams are open to catch and release for wild fish.
When you say excess fish in a system, I'm assuming you're referring to the amount of fish over escapement, right?
I guess I'm just uneducated in this situation. Six thousand fish returning is a pretty large amount, but I don't know the size of the river, or the angling pressure it receives.
I think fisheries should be open to "catch and release" or "open to adipose fin-clipped steelhead" only if they are not anywhere near the possibility of extinction from that stream. If the fish are doing extremely poor, or runs are declining, I believe it's a smart idea to close the stream to all angling. BUT I think angling (catch and release mortality) is a very small factor in the big picture of wild fish survival.

[ 01-29-2004, 01:24 AM: Message edited by: sparkleboy ]

[Uglygreen]

Dan -

Did you actually read that first report? You are claiming that the text of the report says its a broodstock program, yet I cant read it without putting my credit card number in and paying $20 bucks for the privlidge. The abstract on its own means nothing. Are they talking about a standard hatchery supplimentation program or a conservation broodstock program?

The abstract suggests that the results were similar to the Hood River study for the OLD BIG CREEK / SKAMANIA stocks previously used in Hood river, not the consrevation stock now used in Hood River. Which would support my point. I would be glad to read a copy of the report, maybe you can forward me a copy of the one you bought?

I didn't see anything in the Hood River Broodstock report that stated no negative effects on wild stocks and that it stated; "We have not yet conducted a formal analysis…"

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">2. Fish from new, conservation hatchery stock have fitness that is about equal to that of wild fish (less than wild in two years, greater than in the third year). The same pattern is apparent whether one examines the relative fitness of individual parents or that of pairs that left at least one offspring. The similar fitnesses H(new stock) x W and W x W pairs, suggests that having Hnew fish in the system is probably not obviously dragging down the fitness of the wild population for genetic reasons (as might have been expected under some models; e.g. Lynch and O’Hely, 2001). Thus, the conservation hatchery program appears to have added a demographic boost to the population without having obvious negative genetic consequences - at least in regards the effects of domestication selection and mutation accumulation that should occur in the hatchery. We have not yet conducted a formal analysis of the effect of the hatchery program on the effective size of the wild population (e.g. Ryman et al., 1995), but the high levels of microsatellite diversity we still observe in both runs suggest that reduced effective size is not a problem.

How about reading that paragraph (and the multiple pages of supporting data) as a whole and not taking 8 words out of context?

History has shown that hatchery fish do not work and there is no long term sustainability with using them.

I use trends and the trends for rivers with both wild and hatchery fish domestic or broodstock show reduced production of wild fish.

Nutty or not, that's the trends with hatchery fish.

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">Dan that is simply not true. The scientific data on conservation broodstock consistanty says otherwise - for example: please read the following paragraph. Pay particular attention to the part highlighted by the bold text.

We could estimate the proportions of each type of observed cross expected if H
and W fish mate randomly, and then compare those proportions to the observed
proportions of parental pairs we actually detected of each type. But because we
cannot count pairs that left no surviving offspring, there is no way to disentangle
non-random mating from differences in parental fecundity or offspring survival
(you would need to observe matings to do that). If we restrict our analysis to
pairs that left at least one surviving offspring, then we can calculate the relative
fitness of each type of cross for that truncated dataset. Any difference here is
necessarily owing to offspring survival or parental fecundity because we have
restricted the inference to those fish that, by definition, mated. This analysis
probably underestimates the fitness differences among the three types of pairs
because we have no zero-offspring class. Nevertheless, even for this restricted
dataset our results show that H(old)xH(old) crosses always did worse that H(old) x W,
which in turn were worse than WxW crosses (see Table 4, WINTER RUN 91 and
SUMMER RUN 95-96). This result indicates that breeding by H(old) fish in the
wild may indeed be dragging down the fitness of wild fish. In contrast, H(new) x
H(new) and H(new) x W crosses did quite well, equalling or exceeding W x W fitness
in some years, although the differences are quite variable from year to year (see
Table 4, WINTER RUN 95-97) Of more importance, however, these results
show that all three types of crosses (H(new)xH(new), H(new)x W, and W x W) occur in
the wild and produce substantial numbers of surviving F1 offspring.


Once again you are equating the hatchery practices of 20 years ago with the science of today. Conservation Broodstock programs of today are generally very sucessful as evidenced by the Hood River program, the Siltez program, the Wilson program, and a bunch of others.

Here's a few quotes off of Bill Bakke's site:

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">I went to Bill Bakke's Native Fish Society website looking for those reports you posted the quotes from. I think I found where you got those quotes. Here is the link...LINK

I didn't find the studies posted there, just the word for word and possibly (consider the source) out of context quotes you posted. I then did some googleing looking for the actual studies. What I found was that the general theme always seems to be:

Hatchery programs have been poorly used in the past (for lots of different reasons) and here is what was wrong and here is how to fix them so they can be useful tools for supplimenting and rebuilding wild fish stocks in the future.

Case in point is the following study on ONC Fish (which cites most of the studies you listed as references):

ABUNDANCE AND PRODUCTIVITY OF NATURALLY SPAWNING OREGON COASTAL COHO SALMON (ONCORHYNCHUS KISUTCH) IN RIVERS WITH AND WITHOUT HATCHERY PROGRAMS

Which Concludes:

Considered together, the Oregon coastal coho salmon experience and the
observations of other workers indicate that the effects of hatchery programs on
natural production are unique to each program and not consistent over all
applications of artificial propagation. Additionally, most if not all of the
detrimental effects of hatchery operations reported in the technical literature are
consequences of management actions rather than intrinsic properties of artificial
propagation, and can be ameliorated by judicious management of hatchery
programs. The important implication of these considerations is that natural
production and artificial propagation are not necessarily antagonistic.
Judiciously managed hatchery programs can provide conservation and harvest
opportunities concurrently.

Dan, you cant just take what groups like the Native Fish Society and the like tell you at face value. Take the time to read the actual studies that have been done. Keep in mind that those done in the last 5 years have a lot more relevance to what is happening today than those that were done 15 or 20 years ago when hatchery operations were a lot different than they are now. The stuff you keep posting and referencing is generally referring to what was wrong with the "old style" hatchery operations. Yes - we have learned a ton about how NOT to run a fish hatchery. But thats not the end of the story. We have concurrently learned a ton about how to do a hatchery operation the right way! Sure there is still a lot that needs to be changed, but look around you..... its changing. Slow in some cases, fast in others... but with positive results in nearly all cases. Why would you want to throw away everything we have learned in the past 30 years?

You cant compare a production hatchery program from the 1970's with a broodstock conservation program of today. They are completly different things. Different goals, different methods, different safeguards, different monitering, and different results. Most people who keep an open mind and look at the recent studies done on the forward moving hatchery programs of today that have incorporated the lessons of what was done wrong in the past find a lot to like.

UG

[ 01-29-2004, 12:08 PM: Message edited by: Uglygreen ]

[Born to be Wild]

Dan, you cant just take what groups like the Native Fish Society and the like tell you at face value. Take the time to read the actual studies that have been done. Keep in mind that those done in the last 5 years have a lot more relevance to what is happening today than those that were done 15 or 20 years ago when hatchery operations were a lot different than they are now. The stuff you keep posting and referencing is generally referring to what was wrong with the "old style" hatchery operations. Yes - we have learned a ton about how NOT to run a fish hatchery. But thats not the end of the story. We have concurrently learned a ton about how to do a hatchery operation the right way! Sure there is still a lot that needs to be changed, but look around you..... its changing. Slow in some cases, fast in others... but with positive results in nearly all cases. Why would you want to throw away everything we have learned in the past 30 years?

You cant compare a production hatchery program from the 1970's with a broodstock conservation program of today. They are completly different things. Different goals, different methods, different safeguards, different monitering, and different results. Most people who keep an open mind and look at the recent studies done on the forward moving hatchery programs of today that have incorporated the lessons of what was done wrong in the past find a lot to like.

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">Brad, after further reviewing the Hood River report you posted I noticed it is a very expensive conservation program, not a mass producing hatchery broodstock supplementation program.
This very expensive program is designed to create a wild run of steelhead and is entirely different than what is taking place on the Siletz, Wilson, Nestucca and other rivers.

So how many millions does this special program cost and how many fish are being harvested?
Would you like to report those $figures to us?

You can see by the report that it is producing small numbers of steelhead.
So what do those harvested Hood River steelhead cost us? $500.00 each? $1000.000 each?
Maybe the money would be better spent by buying out some of the LCR gill netters?

As I said, show me some scientific reports that state that hatchery broodstock steelhead aren’t suppressing wild steelhead or of concern to there overall health and I will endorse hatchery broodstock programs once again.

The report that I posted the abstract states that both domestic and broodstock hatchery steelhead suppress wild steelhead.
Out of the 12 rivers in that report some were domestic stocks and some were broodstock stocks.
I don’t have internet service at the cabin on the Kalama but I’ll burn it on a CD and send it your way.

I can show you numerous new reports (last years) I received from NOAA that conclude domesticated hatchery steelhead, coho and Chinook suppress wild fish production that are not even available on the net.
Three of these reports I have already posted on ifish.
Those particular reports are regarding the old “domesticated” stocks however.

Regarding that coho report you posted, you don’t expect me to take Jim Lannan seriously I hope?

Lannan is the guy that I saw in the courtroom when the Alsea Alliance sued ODFW over the Fall Creek hatchery program closure.
What a joke!

I was there at the hearing and Jim (Lannan) was very hypocritical in what he said to the judge.
Jim admitted to the judge that the Fall Creek strain had used eggs from other basins over the years including Big Creek and that they were a “domesticated stock” in his own words, but told the judge that the genes were different than those of the wild coho in that basin and once ODFW ended that run, those gene’s were lost forever!
I say good riddance!!!

The Alsea Alliance in my opinion were a bunch of Bozo’s that know absolutely nothing about fish biology (or refused to except it) and thank God they didn’t get their way.
The Alsea wild coho have rebounded since the closure of Fall Creek and were on a steady decline down to just a couple hundred fish at the time of the closure.

Jim Lannan is not a friend of wild fish and anything written by him should be taken with a grain of salt because he is very partial to the big hatchery programs of the past.


Cosmo, one point I spaced last night regarding the OCN’s is that the Lower Columbia River wild coho aren’t improving and making the same dramatic rebound as the OCN’s and they have shared the same good ocean conditions and lack of the commercial troll fleet.
The LRC wild coho could become listed on the ESA as “endangered”.
The OCN’s on the other hand are going the opposite direction and in all probability will become de-listed as “threatened”.
Possibly they are being killed off by the LCR gill-netters, but that I don’t know.

Supposedly, when I asked Steve King about that issue many years ago at an ODFW salmon industry group meeting I was told that the nets came out before the LCR wild coho returned.
I wasn’t satisfied with that answer and still have my doubts. [img]graemlins/eek13.gif[/img]

I have been told by numerous Longview fishermen that they have seen coho with adipose fins intact for sale in the local area.
Seeing how fishermen don’t lie, I take that as Gospel. :grin:

So why aren’t the LCR wild coho making the same rebound as the OCN’s if the gill nets aren’t doing the damage?
Could it be because the Columbia River has massive hatchery programs?
They share the same ocean!

That’s what I mean by trends.
The trends overwhelming show on the East Coast, West Coast and in British Columbia
that when you have big hatchery programs, you have depressed wild stocks.
We have the same trends with the north and central coast Chinook stocks.
Where there are no hatchery Chinook, we have healthy and possibly historic runs.
Where there are hatchery Chinook, we have depressed runs, i.e. Tillamook and Nestucca basins.
I have posted at least three different current reports on ifish that tell the same story.

There is no need for hatchery broodstock steelhead in the Nestucca River as that river could support a wild steelhead harvest.
Fishermen were stoked with hatchery fish many years ago also until the science caught up with them and some are still very fond of the hatchery brat’s.
There is no need for hatchery chinook in the Nestucca River also as that river does support a wild chinook harvest.

Why then are we producing all these unneeded expensive harmful hatchery fish in those basins?

I used to always see the donation box at Nestucca Valley Sporting Goods for the collection of monies to support hatchery fish and see the pleas for volunteer hatchery fin clipping on ifish and wonder why?
Anymore I get an eerie feeling when I walk through a salmonid hatchery.
To me it is comparable to religious cults that are deceived into believing they are doing a “good” thing and yet they are being destructive to the wild fish in those basins.
Just my own personal opinion.

Again, I don’t have a hatred for hatchery fish and believe they are beneficial in some basins.
But in some basins they are not necessary, a waste of funds and detrimental to the wild fish in those basins.

I feel we are going the wrong direction in some basins and that both Oregon and Washington should set aside a few rivers that biologist feel have adequate habitat and manage as wild fish only.
Then and only then it could be proven or disproved to the skeptical that we don’t need hatcheries in some rivers and that we are better off without hatcheries in some basins or rivers.

Some of those candidates might include the Yaquina, or the Nestucca, or the Alsea, or the Kalama, or the Elocoman, or the EF Lewis or the Gray’s, the Naeselle or many others that have potential possibilities of producing good numbers of wild fish.

I’m not certain even though I lived close to the Yaquina, but I believe there are no hatchery fish in that basin (excluding the wild broodstock Chinook fishery for Yaquina Bay).
I don’t know, but don’t think there is steelhead in the Yaquina River. Maybe there is?
It does have very healthy populations of wild Chinook and wild coho presently and it would be my guess healthy cutthroat also.

Is that asking too much for sportsmen to give up a river here and there (hatchery fish) to see if they could once again produce healthy numbers of wild fish?

As I have posted before about a year ago, a friend of mine lives on the Harris River on Prince of Wales Island.
He can harvest 6 wild coho a day (maybe more with his subsistence).
They have had logging there, and have commercial fishing on them.
So what is the big difference there? Better ocean or fresh water conditions? Less river fishermen? And/or possibly the lack of a hatchery program?
Dunno.

The one thing I do know is chicken farming works for low priced poor quality chickens but try turning them loose in the wild. :shocked:
Corn field style management of our forest isn’t working out that great either.

Get back to natural ways of managing our resources and maybe our fisheries won’t be such a mess!
This does not include un-natural artificial propagation of hatchery fish, broodstock or otherwise.

As Brad said; “wouldn’t it be grand…
Why not give it a chance?
Why are we defying and ignoring science?


Dano

[Born to be Wild]

Sure things are looking up seemingly all over the place these days, but just wait until the next bad ocean cycle. All of our returns will take a dive again and without hatchery fish, our fishing opportunities would come to a screetchin halt.

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">This just isn't so Blackdog.
Fish have always gone in cycles because of ocean conditions and other factors (floods, etc.)
Even so we used to harvest wild steelhead, coho and chinook even during the poor cycles.

Fact we have harvested those wild fish all throughout history and we lost most of those fisheries after the massive hatcheries got fired up and were successful with the new hatchery food on releasing millions of smolts.
This came about in the late 60's to early 70's.

Prior to that the wild fish even survived the onslaught in the woods by very poor logging practices.

Compare the time frame of the declining wild fish with the time frame when the hatcheries became successful in producing millions of smolts.
Coincidence?

By the way, British Columbia is coming to the same conclusions up there.

Jimmy Carl,

Yes I will still throw jigs off the rocks down in Dopey Bay and I am actually leaving for there tomorrow morning.
Don't think I will be fishing the rocks though.
Imagine the ocean is a mess.
Looks like steelhead will be out along with crabbing.
Good time to take care of business and move more stuff from storage.

February is usually the best month for catching ling's off the rocks and boat for that matter.
I'll be getting together with some ifisher's soon and fishing the rocks.
Give me a hollar when you are ready.

Dano

[Salmonator]

[img]graemlins/applause.gif[/img]