For your information. Some thoughts to ponder... - Page 2 - www.ifish.net
The Oregonian's Bill Monroe!

Go Back   www.ifish.net > Ifish Fishing and Hunting > Ifish Community

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 12-04-2005, 02:04 PM   #61
Salmo Gairdnerii
Chromer
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Independence, OR
Posts: 950
Default Re: at the least be informed

__________________
"There are in fact two things, science and opinion; the former begets knowledge, the latter ignorance." Hippocrates
Salmo Gairdnerii is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Old 12-04-2005, 02:10 PM   #62
eyeFISH
King Salmon
 
eyeFISH's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 17,813
Default Re: at the least be informed

Quote:
One other thing you need to remember without wild fish, there is no program at all. We hold habtiat and everything that follows the health of wild fish with the most importantcy. If wild numbers start to decrease, now this is my opinion the program would be halted. So to keep the program alive wild fish must prosper. And thats how most of us view the program.
Excellent observation, Travis.

If in fact the goal is to ensure that wild fish must prosper, then the fundamental change that must take place in the program is a push to cull all the surplus hatchery fish out of the system before they have a chance to spawn.

Without a genuine segregation plan, over time, the program is doomed to fail.
__________________
http://www.piscatorialpursuits.com/uploads/UP12710.jpg

Long Live the Kings!
eyeFISH.... The Keen Eye MD
eyeFISH is online now  
Old 12-04-2005, 02:34 PM   #63
willametteriveroutlaw
King Salmon
 
willametteriveroutlaw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Milwaukie, OR
Posts: 8,868
Default Re: at the least be informed

Quote:



Do you honestly think that Bakke, after all the years he has fought for wild fish would deliberately mislead?

Yes, I do. They have already tried it many times. :whazzup:
Let me ask you this stew, a member of the native fish society, first said that the few fish used for the broodstock program on the were going to kill the population and then when a population study was done and there was a large return (a great year for ocean production BTW) he called for wild steelhead harvest instead? Sounds like a guy who just blindly hates consumptive opportunities for the general public rather than wanting to save wild fish.
__________________
The worst part is, now I have to agree with WRO. Which causes me much pain and grief.

-Flatfish
willametteriveroutlaw is online now  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Old 12-04-2005, 02:54 PM   #64
jacksalmon
Sturgeon
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: portland
Posts: 3,899
Default Re: at the least be informed

I resepct the opinions of all you guys, but keep in mind that Bakke only has one thing in mind-----the survival of wild fish. I guess he could be a little biased, but who could criticize him for that at least if you call yourself a fisher.
But one problem that no one addresses and it is the main problem without a doubt. That problem is the growth in human population. All habitat problems are the result of an increasingly consumptive human society. More humans will equal more habitat destruction. They can't help it---it is their nature. They need resources to survive and they will consume them to the detriment of wild fish. So, in the long run, this debate is worthless because no one will do anything about human population growth and more humans will snuff out wild fish and many other wild critters. Just today the Oregonian ran an article about 100,000 more people in East Multnomah County. What is the point of that? Aren't all these people going to put more pressure on the elements wild fish depend on? So, what is the point of the debate, the fish will lose in the long run because no one will do anything about more humans.
I like people generally, but why do we need an increasing number of them. We have enough right now and it would be nice if that number never increased. So, we would have plenty of people to party and play sports for TV and we could learn to manage their consumptive habits. But, that won't happen. So good-bye fish, Bakke or not.
jacksalmon is online now  
Old 12-04-2005, 03:17 PM   #65
eyeFISH
King Salmon
 
eyeFISH's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 17,813
Default Re: at the least be informed

Quote:
All habitat problems are the result of an increasingly consumptive human society. More humans will equal more habitat destruction. They can't help it---it is their nature. They need resources to survive and they will consume them to the detriment of wild fish. So, in the long run, this debate is worthless because no one will do anything about human population growth and more humans will snuff out wild fish and many other wild critters.

So good-bye fish, Bakke or not.
That's one way to look at it JS, but that sort of doom-and-gloom attitude that points a finger at some other target of blame is not terribly productive. In fact, it's what has accelerated the pace of the present-day wild salmon crisis.

It's certain that the wild fish are dying the death of a thousand wounds. Attitudes like yours just give folks that harm wild salmon an excuse to say, "The hell with it... I'll just keep on doing what I'm doing because someone else is inflicting a bigger wound than mine." Those that harm salmon are left to believe, "What difference does my wound make when the fish is gonna die of the 999 others anyway."

As a part of the human race, we all have a negative impact on wild salmon, you included. It's up to each of us to ensure those impacts are minimzed to the best of our ability, both individually and collectively.
__________________
http://www.piscatorialpursuits.com/uploads/UP12710.jpg

Long Live the Kings!
eyeFISH.... The Keen Eye MD
eyeFISH is online now  
Old 12-04-2005, 03:20 PM   #66
cosmo
 
cosmo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 3,268
Default Re: at the least be informed

Wow, great discussion.
Does anyone have a chart showing a population trend of wild fish in a river stocked with out of basin hatchery fish that documents the decline of the wild population due to (h+w) interaction?
Does anyone have a coatal population study that shows a river or tributary that shows a wild population trend that describes a sharp contrast to nearby wild populations that exist in the presence of hatchery fish?
With comments like this: "Without a genuine segregation plan, over time, the program is doomed to fail." That speak very strongly, and the fact that horrible out of basin fish have been planted in numbers, for decades, that would boggle the mind, it's a wonder a wild fish still exists. And yet, where there is habitat, there are wild fish.
What really becomes interesting in these discussions is that very quickly hatchery fish are virtually fingered as solely responsible for the demise of wild fish, yet no real-world examples showing differences in river systems are available.
My only thought is that the heavyness of this discussion appears as if we're making a choice as to the future of the wild population, yet hatchery programs are so much smaller today than at any other time, and still the wild populations are doing very well---where there is habitat.
Now if the Salmonberry, or Drift Creek, were showing a consistent trend in wild population growth and at the same time the Wilson and Nestucca were declining, then there becomes questions as to why. Does Bakke offer any thoughts on population estimates? Any examples available? That would really help me out in thinking some of this stuff through.
cosmo is offline  
Old 12-04-2005, 04:14 PM   #67
TheRogue
King Salmon
 
TheRogue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Lafayette, OR USA
Posts: 12,899
Default Re: at the least be informed

cosmo.....

He will offer information that supports his position, nothing more.

TR
__________________
From Wikipedia:

A feral horse is a free-roaming horse of domesticated ancestry. As such, a feral horse is not a wild animal in the sense of an animal without domesticated ancestors.
TheRogue is offline  
Old 12-04-2005, 05:45 PM   #68
Amerman
Ifish Nate
 
Amerman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Monmouth, OR
Posts: 2,590
Default Again already

Ok, I was hoping this one would eventually die....

Travis and Jack, well said. You both have been leaders in getting our broodstock programs running and monitoring the progress we are making. Many others have also made great points. A lot of the points have been made before

4 pages of this fight from a month ago Most of our thoughts were the same then

5 More pages from the past

Another time here from Stew

Another 4 pager here that ended up locked More work for the mods

I am actually impressed with most here that we have kept out of the name calling and fighting

I think my views are pretty well outlined above. But too a couple points from this thread:

One many of the data and stuff used in the research above claims to be about broodstock but in fact is just old hatchery practices that are not used in most current broodstocks. Basically all hatchery fish in the past have been taken from a broodstock ( term for the fish used to make a hatchery stock). One of the main problems in the past has been the interbreeding of returning stock for years and years, so ya, I am sure he can find some data that shows these practices are bad. What he claimed in his data is that these types of programs are not what's best for rebuilding depressed ( or endangered) native stocks or should not be used as a way to rebuild native stocks.

I will say again we are not using these to rebuild native stocks. Our efforts to rebuild native stocks now are implementing catch and release on all native fish, educating the public on proper ways of handling these native fish, habitat restoration (including water quality, forest pratices, road constuction, river habitat, predator management and all the other things we are doing) and removing out-of-basin stocks out of the streams. By replacing out-of-basin stocks with in-basin broodstocks that come from wild genes each year and are not respawnd, we hope to lessen any impact we have on the wild fish. We are hoping with all the efforts we are doing currently, that we can continue to fish on for hatchery fish, enjoy catch and release on native fish and most importantly keep our impact on the wild fish low enough that they are allowed to rebuild themselves Could we have less impact? Yes, we could all quit fishing.

Eyefish
Quote:
The value of using wild native broodstock is enjoyed by those participating in the fishery.... they get a higher quality fish to catch. There is ZERO value added to the wild population. We could just as easily use the old crappy broodstock, and the benefits to the wild fish would be the same.... ZERO.

I am sure, like everyone else, you can see that using out-of-basin stocks has had a negative impact on our current runs. And you too can see that a broodstock of in-basin fish has to be better or at least have less negative impact. I think these are two points we all here agree on. So let's make up numbers and say that the OBS has a 10% harm to the wild fish, and we all agree that the current broodstock has less impact but still some so lets say 5% ( some people may still want to say 9% some may want to say 1%). But anyone that can do basic math can see that 10% minus 5% would be 5% . So even if current practices have a 5% neg. impact they are still better by 5% (or whatever your number is, it would still be positive no matter how small) than old practices. So the benefit to the wild fish would be 5% and not zero as you stated. Plus, as you pointed out, we get the added benefit of better quality hatchery fish to boot. Looks like win-win to me.

Again Backe is correct. This should not be used as a tool to rebuild depleted native stocks. We should continue to use the other tool above to rebuild the native stocks but use broodstock programs to provide quality hatchery fish to catch and keep and hopefully lessen the impact too.

As both side can agree, if native stocks get so depleted that they can not withstand the impact of fishing pressure, hatchery programs and human influences on the rivers, we should stop all of them meaning stopping fish altogether, stop hatchery programs and stop damaging the rivers. Trust me, we have done impact studies on all the rivers currently implementing broodstock programs (and will continue to do so yearly) and feel that they have wild runs currently strong enough to withstand the damage from a catch and release fishery and a hatchery broodstock program. In fact we found the runs to be so strong on the Nestucca that Mr. Backe and Mr. Helgoson (sp) Used our data to imply there was enough wild fish to allow a wild kill fishery instead of a broodstock program (it's public record).

I think there has been much positive talk here and some good points have been made about removing these broodstock fish from the rivers after they return. I believe this is one of the main points in moving the Nestucca fish to Bays creek (and I believe all are removed at the SF Wilson location as well). I am sure we can do more.

Anyone who thinks they can change the bad hatchery practices of the past by complaining about all future hatchery decisions or by calling for the end of all hatcheries is fooling themselves (like sticking your head in the sand and hoping that your problems go away).

So once again I will say to all those people that think there is a better way too do stuff, please come work with us, show us what that way is, and lets work together to implement it. Tells us how to make it better rather than just point out what you think is wrong with everything. (Usually this is when these threads unfortunately die)
Amerman is offline  
Old 12-04-2005, 05:46 PM   #69
Stew
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: at the least be informed

With all of the vilification of Bill Bakke and NFS the question should be why? Where is his motivation? WRO says he sound like a guy who blindly hates the consumptive opportunities for the general public. What would it benefit him to do this?
I think what it really boils down to is people are unwilling to sacrifice for the greater good and that greater good is preserving wild fish runs as well as we can. There has been a tremendous amount of habitat loss over the years that cannot be restored. The wild fish will never recover to the point of unlimited harvest for all or maybe even no harvest at all. Groups like Bakke's NFS are unselfishly trying to save what remnant is left! They are not trying to end fish harvest or shut down all hatcheries! That is no where in the Native Fish Society's mission statement. Guys like Bakke should be applauded for what they have done! Get the facts straight right here and now. Groups like NFS, Trout Unlimited, Wild Steelhead Coalition and others are there to preserve our resource.
Good post Scott Keeping the returning hatchery fish segregated from wild spawning fish is the key. How and when, if ever that will be done is another matter
I think we can all agree on that premise
Yes this issue keeps coming up but it's an important issue don't you think?
 
Old 12-04-2005, 06:21 PM   #70
Salmonator
Sturgeon
 
Salmonator's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Posts: 4,286
Default Re: at the least be informed

Quote:
There is ZERO value added to the wild population. We could just as easily use the old crappy broodstock, and the benefits to the wild fish would be the same.... ZERO.

Something that I haven't seen mentioned yet is the fact (ok I hope it's a fact) that due to their higher survival rate, less broodstock smolts need to be released to acheive the same or higher number of returning adults. I used to have some numbers on the Siltez and Coquille but I have no idea where they are. Hopefully somebody else can pull up the historical release numbers. If this is indeed true then I would have to say that it is a VERY big benefit to the wild population.

Quote:
Let's not kid ourselves into thinking we are somehow helping the wild fish with the wild broodstock programs. We are doing it for us, not for them.
I would have to say that statement is dead wrong and borderline offensive
__________________
Team cheesy cartopper

If I knock my own salmon off with the net in the middle of the ocean and nobody saw it, did it actually happen?
Salmonator is offline  
Old 12-04-2005, 06:54 PM   #71
stlhdr1
Sturgeon
 
stlhdr1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Battle Ground WA
Posts: 4,861
Default Re: at the least be informed

Here's a question that I have... Pick a river in WA or OR that hasn't had "hatchery fish" planted that is abundant with true wild steelhead.... Is there one?

Everyone is trying to blame hatchery fish and the end result (someday) will be ZERO if any fishing if the hatchery fish go away, broodstock or not....

In WA there are select rivers that you can retain wild steelhead, 1 a day 5 a year. But it sure is coincidental that those same rivers have tribal netting. My point is you give to get...

If you give up hatchery fish, your on the road to giving up fishing.

Does that make sense?

Keith
stlhdr1 is offline  
Old 12-04-2005, 07:44 PM   #72
eyeFISH
King Salmon
 
eyeFISH's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 17,813
Default Re: Again already

Amerman stated:
Quote:
Eyefish
Quote:
The value of using wild native broodstock is enjoyed by those participating in the fishery.... they get a higher quality fish to catch. There is ZERO value added to the wild population. We could just as easily use the old crappy broodstock, and the benefits to the wild fish would be the same.... ZERO.

Scott, I appreciate the quote above, but for the record, it was taken out of context. You left out the preconditional line of my "ZERO value added" assertion.

For the record, the full text reads as follows:
"As I said earlier, hatcheries are only damaging if we let the hatchery fish spawn in the wild. No intermingling, then no damage, regardless of what broodstock is used. The value of using wild native broodstock is enjoyed by those participating in the fishery.... they get a higher quality fish to catch. There is ZERO value added to the wild population. We could just as easily use the old crappy broodstock, and the benefits to the wild fish would be the same.... ZERO."

I will state it again here for clarity. Once you have assured the pre-condition of no co-mingling of hatchery and wild spawners, it matters not whether you use in-basin or out-of-basin fish for hatchery broodstock. In terms of minimizing negative impacts, there is ZERO value added by choosing in-basin or out-of-basin broodstock. The key is segregation, no mixing. Assure that, and the rest really doesn't matter to the wild fish populations at stake.

On the other hand, if rampant straying is allowed to occur, and hacthery fish are intentionally permitted to spawn naturally, then yes, using in-basin broodstock is much less harmful to wild stocks than using out-of-basin, just as you stated in your rebuttal.

Quote:
But anyone that can do basic math can see that 10% minus 5% would be 5% . So even if current practices have a 5% neg. impact they are still better by 5% (or whatever your number is, it would still be positive no matter how small) than old practices. So the benefit to the wild fish would be 5% and not zero as you stated. Plus, as you pointed out, we get the added benefit of better quality hatchery fish to boot. Looks like win-win to me.
The take home message here is that any co-mingling by hatchery fish from either source of broodstock is BAD for wild fish. If a guy beats his wife twice a week in places that it doesn't show, is he better than the guy who beats his wife 5 days a week and leaves obvious facial deformity and bruising every time he does it? Both these guys hurt their spouse, one obviously much worse than the other. Do you think the less battered wife feels any "value added" because she takes a less severe beating each week? Do you really think she feels like she's "winning" anything?

Scott went on to say:
Quote:
So once again I will say to all those people that think there is a better way too do stuff, please come work with us, show us what that way is, and lets work together to implement it. Tells us how to make it better rather than just point out what you think is wrong with everything. (Usually this is when these threads unfortunately die)
I think this discussion has led us to the better way, Scott. Eliminate wild spawning by the new broodstock fish, and we've got a true win-win. I'm sure the wild fish would agree.
__________________
http://www.piscatorialpursuits.com/uploads/UP12710.jpg

Long Live the Kings!
eyeFISH.... The Keen Eye MD
eyeFISH is online now  
Old 12-04-2005, 08:28 PM   #73
Amerman
Ifish Nate
 
Amerman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Monmouth, OR
Posts: 2,590
Default Re: Again already

Quote:
Scott, I appreciate the quote above, but for the record, it was taken out of context. You left out the preconditional line of my "ZERO value added" assertion.

Opps sorry my bad I miss read your original post.
Quote:

I will state it again here for clarity. Once you have assured the pre-condition of no co-mingling of hatchery and wild spawners, it matters not whether you use in-basin or out-of-basin fish for hatchery broodstock. In terms of minimizing negative impacts, there is ZERO value added by choosing in-basin or out-of-basin broodstock. The key is segregation, no mixing. Assure that, and the rest really doesn't matter to the wild fish populations at stake
I would have to go on and argue then that it is impossible to ever remove 100% of the hatchery fish from any stream. So you could never meet your precondition except in theory. It could never truly be a wash, so in-basin broodstock would always be better.

Quote:
I think this discussion has led us to the better way, Scott. Eliminate wild spawning by the new broodstock fish, and we've got a true win-win. I'm sure the wild fish would agree.
Some of us are already working in this direction. On the Siletz some hatchery fish are removed at Palmer Creek. None are allowed over the falls. On the Nestucca the hatchery fish will be removed at Bays creek--one of the reason Bays creek was chosen. On the Wilson we lack a good removal place but a few are removed at the South fork. I (we) have talked with ODFW about where and how we could remove more. In no case can we remove 100%. So if a hatchery fish did spawn in the wild (as above we can never meet a precondition of it never happening) I, like you, would rather it be an in-basin broodstock.

Quote:
Something that I haven't seen mentioned yet is the fact (ok I hope it's a fact) that due to their higher survival rate, less broodstock smolts need to be released to acheive the same or higher number of returning adults. I used to have some numbers on the Siltez and Coquille but I have no idea where they are. Hopefully somebody else can pull up the historical release numbers. If this is indeed true then I would have to say that it is a VERY big benefit to the wild population.
I believe what you are looking for is the number of smolts released on the Siletz was dropped from 100,000 out-of-baisn stock to 50,000 in-basin stock. So without a doubt you are right. We are missing the added benefit of fewer outgoing smolts to compete with the native smolts.
Amerman is offline  
Old 12-04-2005, 08:58 PM   #74
Gun Rod Bow
King Salmon
 
Gun Rod Bow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Sherwood, OR
Posts: 14,272
Default Re: Again already

The thing that gets me on the whole in-basin/out of basin, or wild/hatch comingling concern is this.

Salmon and steelhead naturally co-mingle. It is a fact that wild and hatchery fish end up in rivers other than their home waters.

They share the same DNA, what makes them unique (in some very subtle ways) is natural selection and particular conditions from a population that is "native" to a given river.

I think this is part of their design. This trait assures that a river that is totally depleted of fish will be eventually, naturally re-seeded. Whether or not man is involved one way or the other.

We now have "wild" URB's spawning in irrigation ditches in the Columbia Basin. Nature is resiliant. Again, part of the wonder of it's superior design IMO.

So if a "wild" fish spawns with an (in basin) "Broodstock" fish that is 1 generation removed from "wild" status, and their smolts then become "wild"...how is this such a catastrophy?
__________________
"A society grows great when old men plant trees whose shade they know they shall never sit in." Greek Proverb
Bundìn er bàtlaus mađur
Gun Rod Bow is offline  
Old 12-04-2005, 09:49 PM   #75
rob allen
King Salmon
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Vancouver, WA
Posts: 6,494
Default Re: Again already

I don't think I can participate in this thread without getting edited.... However at the at the most recent steelhead summit A member of ODFW who works closely with the Hood river program told that crowd that in time the wild broodstock would be more similar to the old hatchery stock as it would to the wild stock from which they came..

Hatcherys select fish that are adapted to survival in the hatchery enviroment THERE IS NO WAY TO AVOID THAT!!!and the affects are cumulative and cannot be undone... Once it's in the gene pool it is foreever in the gene pool and over time thoes genes build up in the population and effectively change the population!!!

If anyone needs proof that hatcheries contribute to the decline of wild steelhead populations well there is nothing I can say to change your mind.. it has all been laid out for you before and you CHOOSE to ignore it! I'm not going to post it again so you can ignore it again. besides it should be painfully obvious if you have fished southwest washington at all... I better not say anymore...
__________________
tired of fighting.
rob allen is offline  
Old 12-04-2005, 10:22 PM   #76
Gone Fishin
Tuna!
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: x
Posts: 1,229
Default Re: Again already

I won't get edited ... you all know how I feel about the broodstock program (if you don't just search the archives).
starting on the 15th of this month I'll be out collecting broodstock. to make a better hatchery product, that's all.

-Marty
Gone Fishin is offline  
Old 12-04-2005, 10:43 PM   #77
Stew
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Again already

Quote:
If anyone needs proof that hatcheries contribute to the decline of wild steelhead populations
One river comes to mind Rob and it is very near and dear to my heart. What was once an outstanding producer of wild steelhead including the best steelhead that ever swam in any river in Oregon and Washington. These early summer steelhead ( nicknamed "springers") would arrive in mid April and were the best fighters that readily came to a fly or spinner or spoon. The state thought it knew better and was intent on producing a superior hatchery fish. Those superior hatchery fish have done great in the rivers of the mid west but the river of their origin's wild steelhead nose dived after ignorant hatchery pratices.There is proof positive that the Skamania hatchery strain of steelhead nearly wiped out the wild runs. The Washougal river steelhead survived logging, splash dams and even mining and still flourished but the stupid hatchery practices decimated their numbers to near extinction with just a remnant remaining. The hatchery is still pumping out these confused fish that blow through the system in a day or sometimes less only to get recycled to do it all over again.
Now all this once wonderful little river is now mostly known
for the snag fest that takes place every fall.
 
Old 12-04-2005, 11:23 PM   #78
SSPey
Chromer
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Oregon
Posts: 896
Default Re: Again already

It does make sense that separating wild and hatchery fish would help the wild fish. What can be done to improve this? On the Siletz, only several hundred hatchery fish out of a run of several thousand are trapped at Palmer and the falls. Maybe its no accident that the Siletz is also known to support a relative high percentage of hatchery fish on redds. I wish more wound up in the traps, or on the BBQ.
SSPey is offline  
Old 12-04-2005, 11:29 PM   #79
rob allen
King Salmon
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Vancouver, WA
Posts: 6,494
Default Re: Again already

Bingo Stew!!!!

Ya know there used to be a core of 50 or so guys that used to fish the Washougal. I talked to ang got to know a lot of them growing up on the river. In fact I bet I ran into one or two guys that come to this board. If anyone ever say a kid walking up and down the road with a fishing rod between the big eddy and the steel bridge that was me!

anyway that core of guys has completly dissapeared, they simply don't fish anymore because the Washougal is a [petunias!] poor fishery. There are a few guys that hammer on the summer runs in town and a few guys that fish the winter run from Contrell down but that's it.. No one fishes in May anymore and that used to be the best month. The decline started at the exact same time as the hatchery went into production. Before that time the Washougal as you know had a habitat that was nothing less than totally destroyed yet every summer it returned 1500 wild summer runs ( actual counts not estimates)

I think it's also interesting to note that in every case where hatchery plants were diminished the wild population starts to rebound, where hatchery plants have been eliminated the rebound dramatically. I won't give a specific example here because the river doesn't need the attention...
I believe that even with the habitat as it exsists today I think nearly every river can be brought back to near historic levels with simply the elimination of hatchery steelhead plants. Steelhead were reletively prolific in the Washougal, even when the Mouth was a mercury taintes cesspool, when it had 3 "impassable dams" when cyanide was dumped into the upmost parts of the watershed from minimg operations and where the same all of the habitat was a barran wasteland of clearcutts and forest fires. What diminished the steelhead population can be directly and without question linked to the Skamania hatchery and nothing else!!!
__________________
tired of fighting.
rob allen is offline  
Old 12-04-2005, 11:44 PM   #80
SilverFly
Tuna!
 
SilverFly's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Camas, WA
Posts: 1,777
Default Re: Again already

Just like to cover coupla things:

First, reviewing this topic is not a dead horse because broodstock science is relatively new and we are still on the "steep part of the learning curve" so to speak. Consider that the fisheries management decisions being made today may ultimately determine whether we have ANY fisheries to manage 10, 20, or 50 years from now. Ask your grandkids then whether or not discussing this now was a waste of time.

Second, the "fish-huggers vs meat-fishermen" mentality is exactly the kind of divisive "stuff" (had another word in mind) that fuels the same old counter-productive political processes that has put us where we are today. I was amused when someone pointed out Stew had changed his mind. All I can say is thank God somebody can change their mind because that is what it takes to make progress.

Third, if we have learned ANYTHING from broodstock programs, it is that protecting the native fish gene pool is CRITICAL to the future of hatchery harvest programs. The success of broodstock programs should be the final nail in the coffin of the old argument that "fish are fish" regardless of whether they are hatchery or wild.

-----------------
SilverFly is offline  
Old 12-04-2005, 11:51 PM   #81
eyeFISH
King Salmon
 
eyeFISH's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 17,813
Default Re: Again already

Scott, I will concede that it is impossible to guarantee 100% segregation of hatchery fish from wild spawners, but anything over 95% would be acceptable and do-able in most drainages. There's a whole panel of scientists that agree.

From the HSRG (Hatchery Scientific Review Group):

Specific recommendations for segregated programs include:

Release fish in areas where opportunities to capture non-harvested adults are maximized, thus minimizing genetic risks to natural populations.
Rear fish in a manner and/or at a location that minimizes potential straying and opportunities for natural spawning.
Ensure harvest opportunities are commensurate with potential adult production from segregated programs and take into consideration the potential selective impacts of harvest on the long term viability of segregated programs.
Ensure hatchery-origin adults constitute no more than one to five percent of natural spawners.
Use marks, tags, or other methods to distinguish natural- and hatchery-origin fish among natural spawners, in hatchery broodstocks, and in harvests.
__________________
http://www.piscatorialpursuits.com/uploads/UP12710.jpg

Long Live the Kings!
eyeFISH.... The Keen Eye MD
eyeFISH is online now  
Old 12-05-2005, 12:03 AM   #82
SilverFly
Tuna!
 
SilverFly's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Camas, WA
Posts: 1,777
Default Re: Again already

Originally posted by Gun Rod Bow:
Quote:
The thing that gets me on the whole in-basin/out of basin, or wild/hatch comingling concern is this.

Salmon and steelhead naturally co-mingle. It is a fact that wild and hatchery fish end up in rivers other than their home waters.

They share the same DNA, what makes them unique (in some very subtle ways) is natural selection and particular conditions from a population that is "native" to a given river.

I think this is part of their design. This trait assures that a river that is totally depleted of fish will be eventually, naturally re-seeded. Whether or not man is involved one way or the other.

We now have "wild" URB's spawning in irrigation ditches in the Columbia Basin. Nature is resiliant. Again, part of the wonder of it's superior design IMO.

So if a "wild" fish spawns with an (in basin) "Broodstock" fish that is 1 generation removed from "wild" status, and their smolts then become "wild"...how is this such a catastrophy?
GRB, you bring up some very good points. Yes, salmon and steelhead are very resilient. The fact that we have any left at all today is proof of that. I am not a biologist but I know that it is an understatement to say that steelhead and salmon have more enviromental variables to deal with in their life cycles than most organisms. It is reasonable to assume that resilience is a function of a diverse genetic background. That genetic diversity is the cumulative result of thousands of years of natural selection. Inter-basin straying is one of those selective forces that has played a role in the sharing of beneficial genetic traits, because obviously negative genetic traits would tend to be de-selected within a given watershed. My concern is do we want to risk losing any part of that genetic "library" that has taken thousands of years to create.

I don't think it anyone is saying a few isolated instances of 1 generation brood spawing with wild fish would be a catastrophe. I think what Mr. Bakke is trying to say that it would be extremely dangerous and very likely detremental over multiple generations to use broodfish to supplement wild stocks. My own feeling is that brood programs are great so long as they get their stock from healthy native runs, and every effort is made to keep returning brood adults off native redds.



-------------------
SilverFly is offline  
Old 12-05-2005, 12:12 AM   #83
SilverFly
Tuna!
 
SilverFly's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Camas, WA
Posts: 1,777
Default Re: Again already

Quote:
Scott, I will concede that it is impossible to guarantee 100% segregation of hatchery fish from wild spawners, but anything over 95% would be acceptable and do-able in most drainages. There's a whole panel of scientists that agree.
Doc, I would respectfully disagree that 100% segregation is impossible. Norway has had to deal with the problem of huge numbers of escaped farm atlantic salmon spawning with native fish. They went so far as to install automated weirs on some rivers using video cameras and computerized gates. The computers run a pattern recognition software that analyses the profile of a fish for missing or mis-shapen fins or body shape. I don't believe it would be too difficult to duplicate the same technology here. In fact, a simple weir with a holding pen is all that is really necessary as long as the hatchery reared fish are 100% marked.

--------------
SilverFly is offline  
Old 12-05-2005, 02:20 AM   #84
Rank Amateur
King Salmon
 
Rank Amateur's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Vernonia Or.
Posts: 15,387
Default Re: Again already

I'm definately not as up to speed as all you guys, but back when I was in the fray, we used to raise and release unfed fry, what is your take on that? When I was on STAC we were pushing real hard for ODF&W to do a trial study on a natural barrier blocked stream to see if unfed fry do contribute to a system. All we ever got was that unfed fry do not survive, but no proof to back it up. Has a study ever been documented?

The reason I bring this up is the fact that if using wild the stock the negative effects of hatchery raising to smolts would be alleviated. I would find it hard to believe that altering the natural mortality caused by mother nature upon eggs in a redd, is genetically driven. By placing unfed fry into streams the natural forces take effect and the natural selection process takes place. You gain only by the increase in egg survival. Of coarse you could only use this in places that had the capacity to raise the artificial increase of juveniles.

Just seems to me an unanswered question. If we can not use the Native Brood Stock Program to help rebuild runs, what are we going to do if the native stock is sliding over the edge? Real catch 22, I know.
__________________
"Rivers and the inhabitants of the watery elements are made for wise men to contemplate and for fools to pass without consideration."- Izaak Walton

Team Fair Chase.
Team Fair Exit.
Team don't feed the trolls.
Rank Amateur is offline  
Old 12-05-2005, 02:40 AM   #85
SilverFly
Tuna!
 
SilverFly's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Camas, WA
Posts: 1,777
Default Re: Again already

Quote:
The reason I bring this up is the fact that if using wild the stock the negative effects of hatchery raising to smolts would be alleviated. I would find it hard to believe that altering the natural mortality caused by mother nature upon eggs in a redd, is genetically driven. By placing unfed fry into streams the natural forces take effect and the natural selection process takes place. You gain only by the increase in egg survival.
RA, good point. Here's my "armchair biologist" take on that. Yes, you would be eliminating hatchery induced genetic changes from the fry to smolt stages. However, I suspect that egg survival is a lot more important than you suggest. Eggs developing in-stream have to deal with a wide variety of selective environmental conditions such as shifting gravel, sedimentation, disease, variations in water temp/flow/dissolved oxygen/Ph etc.... By removing eggs from these selective conditions in a hatchery, eggs that otherwise would not have survived in the wild pass their genes "unchecked" to the next stage. So I would say that it is likely to be less harmful genetically, but there is still a significant risk.

As far as stocks that are "sliding over the edge" broodstock might be a last resort. Unfortunately, my understanding is that this has been tried on the east coast unsuccessfully with Atlantic salmon runs that are now extinct.

-----------------------
SilverFly is offline  
Old 12-05-2005, 03:11 AM   #86
Rank Amateur
King Salmon
 
Rank Amateur's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Vernonia Or.
Posts: 15,387
Default Re: Again already



[/quote]
Eggs developing in-stream have to deal with a wide variety of selective environmental conditions such as shifting gravel, sedimentation, disease, variations in water temp/flow/dissolved oxygen/Ph etc.... By removing eggs from these selective conditions in a hatchery, eggs that otherwise would not have survived in the wild pass their genes "unchecked" to the next stage. So I would say that it is likely to be less harmful genetically, but there is still a significant risk.

[/quote]

Yet the conditions that you present are not genetic conditions, with the exception of disease, these are conditions that interact with individual eggs regardless of genetic make up. Being that the eggs would be taken from native stock, they would have the appropriate genes, yet gravel moves and crushes eggs, redds get silted because a hillside slides into the stream, predators eat eggs, ect. None of these interactions with the eggs are based on genetics and thus could be eliminated with out causing genetic alterations to the fish. Just a thought that I believe a lot of people miss. Whether or not dumping unfed fry into a stream is going to be successful is still open for debate, I would have just liked to have been provided an answer when I was involved on a state level.

We have had it all up here on the upper Nehalem, we used to have hatchery steelhead dropped in by the thousands, then we had the hatch box program and now we have nothing. I think they all seem to work about the same, not many fish. But that is a general condidition on the West coast, caused by many factors besides what we are talking about.

I had the same thoughts as many of you years ago when the brood stock program started, it is at least interesting to see some answers being found. Debate is good, sticking ones head in the sand is not.
__________________
"Rivers and the inhabitants of the watery elements are made for wise men to contemplate and for fools to pass without consideration."- Izaak Walton

Team Fair Chase.
Team Fair Exit.
Team don't feed the trolls.
Rank Amateur is offline  
Old 12-05-2005, 07:58 AM   #87
rob allen
King Salmon
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Vancouver, WA
Posts: 6,494
Default Re: Again already

"If we can not use the Native Brood Stock Program to help rebuild runs, what are we going to do if the native stock is sliding over the edge? Real catch 22, I know. "

the answer to this question is extremely simple...

1. we stop harvesting them

2. we stop breeding them out of exsistence with hatcheries

3. we stop destroying and start restoreing their habitat.

having our salmon runs return to historic levels is really that simple...
__________________
tired of fighting.
rob allen is offline  
Old 12-05-2005, 11:16 AM   #88
Travis Moncrief Fins Feathers Furs
Chromer
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Tillamook
Posts: 676
Default Re: Again already

Great posts Scott, and glad to see you around Marty. And GRB I am right with ya.

One thing people aren't realizing is the history of our North Coast Steelhead. That there was a time and we will use the Nestucca as an example, where they dumped over 300,000 out of basin stock in the river and there was bascially no attempt to contain them. Yet today the Nestucca boast one of the largest wild runs with 10,000 to 17,000 fish annualy.

Now I am not condoning old practices in anyway, but certain individuals are picking apart the broodstock program with all their calcualtions, using analogies of stock portfolios and so on. The broodstock fitness is a hundred times better than that of out of basin or old stock yet the nay sayers fight it. As Scott eluded to its a move in a positive direction, but others act like if we continue with the broodstock program we can kiss steelhead good bye. If you were follow their numbers how do we even have a steelhead left. How did they survive from the 60's until now. Yet wild fish continue to do very well here on the North coast.

Its frustrating to me how they trash the program that science all be it early science, says that WBS are much better than the way we used to do it.

If not the broodstock program than the only other option to me is zero hatchery fish. Wait a minute, lets think about that, we do have rivers that have no hatchery influence. Cosmo brought up a perfect example, the Salmonberry. The last thing I heard it was not overflowing with wild steelhead. But remains status quo along with the rest of our rivers. Why isn't it flourishing, like some would have you to believe?

One more thing the studies that Bakke, NFS, and Rob Allen keep alluding to are NOT one generation removed Broodstock Programs. They are nothing like what we are doing now. So Stew, that is why Bakke gets heat from myself and others. He has an agenda, he does not use sicence to mold his agenda, he molds science to meet his agenda. .

And he is against hatcheries, perfect example that Scott already brought up but is worth mentioning again. He and Less H. were originaly against the Nestucca WBS program because there were not enough fish to spare to the program. Then in practically in the same breath when it was found how well the Wild population was doing, well then their argument was there is enough now to harvest. Now show me the consistancy in that
Travis Moncrief Fins Feathers Furs is offline  
Old 12-05-2005, 12:38 PM   #89
Rank Amateur
King Salmon
 
Rank Amateur's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Vernonia Or.
Posts: 15,387
Default Re: Again already

While I most heartedly agree with you Rob, the solutions are far from simple. We have to deal with these situations in a real world and in the real world nothing is absolute. Being on the steering committee for the Upper Nehalem Watershed Council is a real world experience in the workings of government and industry. Nothing is simple at all!
__________________
"Rivers and the inhabitants of the watery elements are made for wise men to contemplate and for fools to pass without consideration."- Izaak Walton

Team Fair Chase.
Team Fair Exit.
Team don't feed the trolls.
Rank Amateur is offline  
Old 12-05-2005, 03:43 PM   #90
stlhdr1
Sturgeon
 
stlhdr1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Battle Ground WA
Posts: 4,861
Default Re: Again already

OK Rob I'm listening, I too have fished a few rivers recently that are making a huge comeback with wild "spring"/"summer" steelhead.

Let me ask you this or anyone else who might know. When were the first Skamania hatchery summer fish introduced into the SW WA rivers?

What were the netting schedules and mesh sizes of the Columbia river through the 70's, 80's and especially the 90's when those fish dissappeared? Let's not forget that Spring Chinook are a prized posession to the commercial fleets of the Big C and they tend to net them the same time the "springer" wild steelhead run peaked? Is there any coincidence that the netting has been halted over the last near decade and our "springer" wild steelhead start to show a comeback. Or, is it the reduced plants of Skamania hatchery fish? I do believe it's one of the two, hatchery fish or commercial netting but lean more towards the issues of overharvest in the past. The one coincidence that leads me to that conclusion is when the % of hatchery fish vs. planted come back as a poor run so have the wild fish. Also in the same respect when the hatchery fish were plentiful so were the wild fish. Leads me to believe the years the numbers were down for both hatchery and wilds something was getting in their ways...

Keith :grin:
stlhdr1 is offline  
Old 12-05-2005, 04:12 PM   #91
The Greek
 
The Greek's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Portland and Tillamook Bay
Posts: 1,302
Default Re: Again already

I am new to this discussion but I have made an overview of all three pages. Please forgive me if my input is redundant but I am now compelled to participate after being away from my computer for a few days.

There are some very good points coming from many of you, Travis, Jack and Scott in particular, as well as Eyefish. Everyone else reading to learn should pay close attention to their posts for quality information. Stew, you also bring up some very valid points, but I believe your agenda to be strictly and un-waveringly in line with that of the Native Fish Soc. Contact me if you have a problem with me saying that but please read on first.

We all need to open our minds a little and that may include the pro-broodstock camp as well. Both sides of this argument can learn from the past to improve the future of our passion. It would be great, but we dont live in a perfect world where we have enough wild fish to have a consumptive fishery on them. Our populatin continues to grow and that is not going to change.

Enter the broodstock programs that supply hatchery fish for the anglers to harvest and a fish that has less impact on the wild fish than the generic hatchery clones of the past(Alsea, Big Cr. and Skamania stocks etc.). I must stress " LESS IMPACT". Maybe soon, under close observation we can find ways to improve these programs even further, decreasing the inter-mingling between broodstock and wild spawners comes to mind. Until "soon" happens I believe that broodstock programs are the best sollution to providing a consumptive fishery.

As of yet, there is no justifiable cause to abandon broodstock programs for fear of doomed wild runs. The "anti-hatchery/anti-consumptive fishery" advocates may have a little compromising to do themselves( suggesting that might be unrealistic though ):grin:. Harvesting fish is here to stay and thats not going to change anytime soon on popular streams, but as for myself, I will never intentionaly kill a wild steelhead and only cringe at the thought.

One last thing to keep in mind, For 50+ years our coastal wild steelhead stocks have endured grossly aggressive hatchery plants, devastating fires and floods, developement, polution and overfishing. Yet, they are doing well. Do you really think relatively small(in comparison to the past)plantings of a broodstock hatchery fish is going to harm wild runs more or even equal to the problems they have faced in the past? These fish are resiliant and deserve more credit than given. There are many other adversaries of wild steelhead that need more critical attention than broodstock programs. Our coastal wild steelhead runs are stronger than I can remember and I'm no spring chicken.

There is still lots of room for improvement, but our habitat on our north coast streams is better than it has been in fifty years since the fires. With catch and release for natives and improvements in habitat, it is my opinion that our wild runs will continue to improve, but this is not a call for letting our guard down. Working together on sollutions will achieve much more than working in contrast to one another.

For these reasons, I support the wild broodstock programs on the north coast.


Chris Vertopoulos
__________________


503-349-1377
G.LOOMIS & SHIMANO PROSTAFF
FISHERMANS MARINE & OUTDOOR PROSTAFF
NW GUIDES & ANGLERS ASSOC.
http://northwestanglingexperience.com
The Greek is offline  
Old 12-05-2005, 04:45 PM   #92
SilverFly
Tuna!
 
SilverFly's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Camas, WA
Posts: 1,777
Default Re: Again already

Quote:
And he is against hatcheries , perfect example that Scott already brought up but is worth mentioning again. He and Less H. were originaly against the Nestucca WBS program because there were not enough fish to spare to the program. Then in practically in the same breath when it was found how well the Wild population was doing, well then their argument was there is enough now to harvest. Now show me the consistancy in that
No offense Travis, but this is what I was talking about with the "fish-hugger vs meat fisherman" mentality. This is where we get into the "dead-horse zone" when we set up opposing camps instead of actually listening to each other. Bakke isn't saying "shutdown the broodstock programs", he is just saying we shouldn't use them to rebuild wild stocks. You're writing off everything Bakke has to say because "he is against hatcheries". Then you criticize him for changing his mind in favor of a WBS program for harvest purposes?! That tells me right there Bill has an open mind and is willing to compromise. The fact that you support WBS programs means you understand the importance of having a healthy native gene pool to draw WBS from. Bill is the main guy fighting to save that gene pool.

We're really on the same page here but we're still arguing over semantics. Whats really sad is I can picture the gill netting lobby reading this thread chuckling to themselves about how the sportfishing community will NEVER be politically united.

And BTW, I will gladly post a pic of my freezer in case your wondering how I feel about harvesting fish.


---------------------
SilverFly is offline  
Old 12-05-2005, 05:41 PM   #93
rob allen
King Salmon
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Vancouver, WA
Posts: 6,494
Default Re: Again already

"One more thing the studies that Bakke, NFS, and Rob Allen keep alluding to are NOT one generation removed Broodstock Programs. They are nothing like what we are doing now. So Stew, that is why Bakke gets heat from myself and others. He has an agenda, he does not use sicence to mold his agenda, he molds science to meet his agenda. .
"

I am sorry there is no two ways about this that is innacurate.

"Its frustrating to me how they trash the program that science all be it early science, says that WBS are much better than the way we used to do it"

no one is trashing wild broodstock programs!!!!!!!!!!! we are simply saying they are not without risk and we shouldn't be jumping into them whole hearedly like we are!!!!!!!!!
__________________
tired of fighting.
rob allen is offline  
Old 12-05-2005, 05:45 PM   #94
stlhdr1
Sturgeon
 
stlhdr1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Battle Ground WA
Posts: 4,861
Default Re: Again already

Rob Allen,

Take the time to answer the questions that I asked above if you could, I'm interested on your outlook there.

Keith
stlhdr1 is offline  
Old 12-05-2005, 05:52 PM   #95
rob allen
King Salmon
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Vancouver, WA
Posts: 6,494
Default Re: Again already

RA the truth of the matter is that it is that simple just people are unwilling to make the sacrifices to do it!!!
__________________
tired of fighting.
rob allen is offline  
Old 12-05-2005, 06:21 PM   #96
rob allen
King Salmon
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Vancouver, WA
Posts: 6,494
Default Re: Again already

Keith off the top of my head i believe the Skamania hatchery came online in 1964.

The reason i don't think commerical overharvest was the cause of our most recent problems is that before the skamania hatchery the went in the river was returning a steady number of wild summer steelhead. inspite of excessive overharvest.. I am not saying overharvest on these fish didn't happen, what i am saying it that they weren't pushed towards extinction until after the hatchery went in.. All the things we do wrong have an impact my point is that we cannot exclude hatcheries from the list just cause we like to go out and catch fish...

I don't know much about historic commercial harvest levels or methods..
Also I don't know of any southwest washington streams where the springers( summer steelhead) are making a huge comeback..

Keith you are right when a run of fish comes back well usually it's both the wild and the hatchery fish but we are not talking about year to year variation we are talking about long term decline several decades of decline.. we may have a reletively good year from time to time but the overall trend is still downward, our highs aren't as high as they once were and our lows are lower than they have ever been..
When it comes to the springers sport anglers were the worst offenders in terms of overharvest, they showed up on the washougal in droves to intercept the large hatchery run and ended up catching and harvesting a lot of wild summer runs. It took us 10 years of fighting ( primarily against the Association of Northwest steelheaders) to get wild steelhead release regulations adopted on the Washougal and east fork rivers. Wild steelhead release became the law on thoes rivers in 1985 and the fish showed no signs of rebounding until hatchery plants were made smaller, they unfortunatly are still very few and very far between. The Washougal's wild summer steelhead run was fewquently fewer than 100 fish during the 80's and 90's and are not much higher than that now.
another river in recent years had it's hatchery summer steelhead program cut entirely because it was getting 20-40 fish a year, this year it had 500 and has been slowly getting better ever since the hatchery plants ceased.
central oregon coast wild coho have seen the same thing happen,, plant fewer fish and you get more wild fish back.

I am all for wild broodstock programs but we have to be careful about where we put them.. ODFW is passing them off as a silver bullet for having hatchery and wild fish, they are running ahead full throttle without thought to the consequences. That is what we object to..
__________________
tired of fighting.
rob allen is offline  
Old 12-05-2005, 06:31 PM   #97
stlhdr1
Sturgeon
 
stlhdr1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Battle Ground WA
Posts: 4,861
Default Re: Again already

Good point Rob. Is there any websites out there that show the years netting was done?

(I'm not trying to sidestep the point of the Broodstock program, just trying to get a understanding of the SW WA rivers...)

Keith
stlhdr1 is offline  
Old 12-05-2005, 07:01 PM   #98
Travis Moncrief Fins Feathers Furs
Chromer
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Tillamook
Posts: 676
Default Re: Again already

Chris, great post. Thanks for sharing

Silverfly, there is no offense taken, but I think you don't understand what I was saying about Bakke in regards to the Nestucca.

They did not want a broodstock program on the Nestucca and there argument was that wild populations were in such peril that none could be spared for the program.

Then it was shown there was an abundance of wild fish. Still not wanting to have a broodstock program, their argument then turned to that there is enough wild fish to harvest wild fish. So instead of starting WBS, he wanted us to kill wild fish. Never was he in favor of starting a broodstock program on the Nestucca. I am not sure how open minded that is. To me its having an agenda with disregard to anything else.

Rob, we are moving cautiously with broodstock programs, you make it sound like it is reckless abandon. All the WBS has done has replaced poor out of basin stock. Nothing more. How is that jumping into them whole heartedly. Should we go back to out of basin? As far as you not trashing broodstock programs. I will respectively leave that alone.
Travis Moncrief Fins Feathers Furs is offline  
Old 12-05-2005, 07:40 PM   #99
SilverFly
Tuna!
 
SilverFly's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Camas, WA
Posts: 1,777
Default Re: Again already


Thanks for clearing that up Travis. I'm actually suprised he would prefer limited wild harvest over a broodstock program. I agree with you that Bill does have an agenda, - which is saving as many native runs as possible. The problem is once the native stock within a watershed is gone, so is the possibility of having a broodstock program there as well.

-----------------------
SilverFly is offline  
Old 12-05-2005, 08:01 PM   #100
boater
Tuna!
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: seattle
Posts: 1,799
Default Re: Again already

Quote:

. I agree with you that Bill does have an agenda, - which is saving as many native runs as possible.

i agree, and he has all the science that everyone ignores to back it up.
boater is offline  
Old 12-05-2005, 08:19 PM   #101
rob allen
King Salmon
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Vancouver, WA
Posts: 6,494
Default Re: Again already

"Rob, we are moving cautiously with broodstock programs, you make it sound like it is reckless abandon."

WRONG!!!! ODFW is actively pursueing wild broodstock programs just about everywhere they can..

in locations where there are lots of wild fish i'd prefer a limited harvest on wild fish if the hatchery fish could be done away with.. the problem is is that a lot of guys want both!!!
the simple fact of the matter is that sport anglers insit on too much harvest and that is their agenda and they pick and choose the science they like based on that agenda!
__________________
tired of fighting.
rob allen is offline  
Old 12-05-2005, 08:36 PM   #102
The Greek
 
The Greek's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Portland and Tillamook Bay
Posts: 1,302
Default Re: Again already

SilverFly.....I will comment on your last post. The Columbia river tributary steelhead runs have other problems that our coastal streams do not face, gillnets and dams. Its no mystery that because of these factors, the Columbia tribs are in much greater danger than the coastal watersheds.

I just want to remind eveyone that our north coast wild steelhead runs have been down a treacherous road in the past. Can you immagine the Wilson river without ANY(NONE AT ALL) riparian habitat for 20 years. Well, that was the case durring and after the three Tillamook burns. My father inlaw told me what the Wilson river canyon and surrounding forest used to look like. "Baren wasteland with lots of burned toothpics" and "moonscape" are the words he used to describe the land.

Prior to the great fires, the steep canyons were completey clearcut all the way across the streams and rivers, buffer zones? what buffer zones. Then there were log rafts, five miles long that scoured and dredged the entire river from headwaters to tidewater. Nobody cared about spawning beds back then. This was happening on nearly every stream on the coast for many years. You too can see these photos from the early 1900's in the Oregon Historical Society. Yet, after such relentless disasters that lasted for decades, the wild fish are still here and doing fine.

Spawning habitat, though not optimum has greatly improved in the last 50 years and barring some new ecological disaster, should continue to improve. I still would like to see larger "no touch" buffer zones on our state forest land and that might be comming soon, but thats another topic.

Again, we must be vigilant and keep our remaining habitat in check and with improved stewardship and consideration, our wild fish are not going away anytime soon. The fact of the matter is, we need groups like the "Wild Fish Society, without them where would the bar be set? Somewhere in the middle, between steelhead extinction and human extinction sounds alot better to me.
__________________


503-349-1377
G.LOOMIS & SHIMANO PROSTAFF
FISHERMANS MARINE & OUTDOOR PROSTAFF
NW GUIDES & ANGLERS ASSOC.
http://northwestanglingexperience.com
The Greek is offline  
Old 12-05-2005, 09:20 PM   #103
Gun Rod Bow
King Salmon
 
Gun Rod Bow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Sherwood, OR
Posts: 14,272
Default Re: Again already

Quote:
I just want to remind eveyone that our north coast wild steelhead runs have been down a treacherous road in the past. Can you immagine the Wilson river without ANY(NONE AT ALL) riparian habitat for 20 years. Well, that was the case durring and after the three Tillamook burns. My father inlaw told me what the Wilson river canyon and surrounding forest used to look like. "Baren wasteland with lots of burned toothpics" and "moonscape" are the words he used to describe the land.

Prior to the great fires, the steep canyons were completey clearcut all the way across the streams and rivers, buffer zones? what buffer zones. Then there were log rafts, five miles long that scoured and dredged the entire river from headwaters to tidewater. Nobody cared about spawning beds back then. This was happening on nearly every stream on the coast for many years. You too can see these photos from the early 1900's in the Oregon Historical Society. Yet, after such relentless disasters that lasted for decades, the wild fish are still here and doing fine.



And chicken wire and pitchforks were the accepted method for harvesting salmon for food.

Not for one minute suggesting that is where we should head, but when you look at what the coastal streambed condition was truly like 60-80-100 years ago. It is in way better shape now. It's true!

The fish are getting better. Habitat is getting better, we are learning. Susatainable catch and keep populations of wild fish are the end game. WBS is a potential tool.

Thanks for that Chris
__________________
"A society grows great when old men plant trees whose shade they know they shall never sit in." Greek Proverb
Bundìn er bàtlaus mađur
Gun Rod Bow is offline  
Old 12-05-2005, 09:40 PM   #104
The Greek
 
The Greek's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Portland and Tillamook Bay
Posts: 1,302
Default Re: Again already

I forgot to mention all the splash dams, that most of the coastal streams were subject to at one time or another. These were earthen or wooden dams that provided large ponds for stockpiling the logs before they were run down the river in rafts that were sometimes miles long. These dams rarely allowed for fish passage, 99% of the time blocking all passage entirely. In areas of mass logging(Nehalem, Wilson, Trask and Nestucca drainages on south) there were often multiple splash dams along a river that were most often removed by a flood or other natural causes. Up until the early 1900's, there were no laws requiring removal even after the area was completely logged and the dams were of no use. Some splash dams were still in existance 30 years ago, broken and no longer in use but sometimes still blocking passage. These dams blocked all upstream passage for years. It IS truly amazing that there are any wild fish left.
__________________


503-349-1377
G.LOOMIS & SHIMANO PROSTAFF
FISHERMANS MARINE & OUTDOOR PROSTAFF
NW GUIDES & ANGLERS ASSOC.
http://northwestanglingexperience.com
The Greek is offline  
Old 12-05-2005, 10:05 PM   #105
eyeFISH
King Salmon
 
eyeFISH's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 17,813
Default Re: Again already

Quote:
Yet, after such relentless disasters that lasted for decades, the wild fish are still here and doing fine.

Astute observation, Chris, and by the way, welcome to the fray! Your insights are very much appreciated.

The above quote is a testament to the remarkable resiliency of salmonids, a resiliency rooted in the diversity of the wild gene pool that has allowed them to adapt and cope with rapid and drastic changes in their environment. If there are even the tiniest niches in that altered environment that can support salmonid production/reproduction, and the fish have a way to access it, the fish WILL make use of it. Allow enough of them to get there, and they will most assuredly challenge the carrying capacity of the available habitat. Increase and improve the available habitat( either naturally, intentionally or accidentally), and salmonid abundance is sure to follow. That is what has allowed these fish to rebound to their present day numbers.... despite the habitat destruction and horrible hatchery practices of the past.

Personally I would like to see more energy and $$$ invested in habitat restoration projects rather than hatcheries. An all-out effort to maximize and restore the accessible habitat, managing for wild escapement goals to challenge its carrying capacity, and even further enhancing that carrying capacity with an adundance of marine derived nutrients that are a natural consequence healthy salmon returns.

Done correctly, those dollars would represent a one-time investment that would continue to support wild fish abundance for an eternity. In contrast, a hatchery program requires continual yearly investment to sustain a state of artifical abundance. Once that investment stops, so does the artificial abundance. There is ZERO ongoing return for those dollars! It's a lot like the difference between owning and renting. Personally, I'd rather own a natural fish factory than rent a fake one.

Present day fish managers and policy-makers, like there mistaken predecessors, continue to overwhelmingly opt for the rent option. So be it. Let's just do everything we can to make sure we aren't harming wild salmon populations in the process. I believe the science on the perils of hatchery introgression has spoken loud and clear.

Since policy-makers will ensure that hatcheries are here to stay, I'll agree that the in-basin model is currently the best way to go about collecting broodstock. As I stated earlier, I have no problem with a wild broodstock program as long as the wild population can afford the mining of eggs and appropriate safeguards are in place to eliminate/minimize the ability of hatchery fish to intermingle with wild spawners.

<font color="red">eye</font><font color="blue">FISH</font> out.....
__________________
http://www.piscatorialpursuits.com/uploads/UP12710.jpg

Long Live the Kings!
eyeFISH.... The Keen Eye MD
eyeFISH is online now  
Old 12-05-2005, 11:01 PM   #106
Jack Smith
Chromer
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Tillamook Oregon
Posts: 795
Default Re: Again already

Great goup of posts and a very civilized and interesting discussion. While eyefish states that he would like to see money spent on habitat resteration projects rather than hatcheries I am in favor of spending money on both and would rather not make a choice.The fact is that currently there is far more money spent on Habitat improvements than on hatcheries and that much more money is available for habitat improvements. In the mean time hatcheries have been allowed to become old and rundown with little or no effort to modernize.This has made it very difficult for hatchery managers to change and improve hatchery practices while using the same old tool. Our effort to implement wildbroodstock programs here on the North Coast have been for the most part funded by private donations recieved from those that believe in what we are doing. Environmental practices have and should continue to change so that Rivers and habitat are protected and where possible rehabilitated because without clean rivers and protected Riparian zones there will be no fish wild or hatchery.
__________________
Jack Smith


"When you get in the end zone you otta act like you been there before."
Jack Smith is offline  
Old 12-05-2005, 11:01 PM   #107
Stew
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Again already

Quote:
Stew, you also bring up some very valid points, but I believe your agenda to be strictly and unwaveringly in line with that of the Native Fish Soc.
Chris for the most part I do agree with there mission statement but I do not march lock-step with everything they say.
I believe the ODFW hatchery system, especially on the north coast leaves a lot to be desired. There does not seem to be any rhyme nor reason to the way they operate.
I have not been to the Cedar Creek hatchery on the Nestucca for awhile but when I did visit it it was in very poor shape without sound operating procedures. If that has changed then please let me know what has been done.
Same thing with the way things were done with Wilson hatchery fish. They dumped the smolt at Duycks (which they still do) and basically created a slaughter fest for about 10 days in December. What kind of sport is that?
So now we have the WB programs. Yes it is indeed better than the Alsea mutants but why are they dumping them all the way up on the South fork? That's some 28 miles up the river!!!
Do you think there is a chance that those fish will mingle with wild fish? Now I know why they opened the first mile of SF Wilson to fishing starting January 1st. Problem is that is the main spawning trib for the Wilson! Are they wishfully thinking these fish won't try to spawn with wild fish? Heck everyone knows that wild steelhead spawn in the main river at several different spots.
So for clarification purposes here is where I stand
1.Get rid of all out of basin stock
2.Go to total WB hatchery fish for harvest opportunity
3.Make sure that the WB stay away from wild spawning fish as much as possible
4.Do not promote WB hatchery fish as a way to build wild fish and yes that has been promoted on other threads.
5.Carefully monitor WB programs and their effect on native stocks.
6.No matter what NFS says NO WILD STEELEAD HARVEST ON THE NORTH COAST
7.Make the entire Tillamook basin fly fishing only (Just seeing if you guys are paying attention)
 
Old 12-05-2005, 11:22 PM   #108
Salmonator
Sturgeon
 
Salmonator's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Posts: 4,286
Default Re: Again already

Quote:
Personally I would like to see more energy and $$$ invested in habitat restoration projects rather than hatcheries.
Hatcheries + consumptive fisheries = many dollars spent on state hatchery programs and local economies.

Habitat restoration programs minus consumptive fisheries equals no dollars from the general fishing public to sustain habitat restoration when there is an adequate number (not a hatchery opponent pie-in-the-sky number) of native fish swimming in our rivers.

I suppose you could ask the tag buying public to pay double what they pay now to include expanded habitat restoration, but you might get some funny looks as they are releasing their second or sixth nate of the day.
__________________
Team cheesy cartopper

If I knock my own salmon off with the net in the middle of the ocean and nobody saw it, did it actually happen?
Salmonator is offline  
Old 12-05-2005, 11:22 PM   #109
SSPey
Chromer
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Oregon
Posts: 896
Default Re: Again already

Quote:
The fact is that currently there is far more money spent on Habitat improvements than on hatcheries and that much more money is available for habitat improvements.
My understanding is that hatcheries and "natural production" are equally funded in ODFW's budget.

http://www.dfw.state.or.us/agency/bu...7_townhall.pdf
SSPey is offline  
Old 12-05-2005, 11:33 PM   #110
Jack Smith
Chromer
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Tillamook Oregon
Posts: 795
Default Re: Again already

You are only looking at the ODFW budget there are many more sources availiable for habitat so the total amount spent on habitat is far more. As far as hatcheries and natural production being funded equaly in the ODFW budget that I don't know.
__________________
Jack Smith


"When you get in the end zone you otta act like you been there before."
Jack Smith is offline  
Old 12-06-2005, 12:02 AM   #111
rob allen
King Salmon
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Vancouver, WA
Posts: 6,494
Default Re: Again already

there are also many more sources of funding for hatcheries!! and the fact is that for decades ODFW spent more money on hatcheries than all ofther fish related issues dor decades and what do we have to show for it than we did before???
__________________
tired of fighting.
rob allen is offline  
Old 12-06-2005, 12:06 AM   #112
Jack Smith
Chromer
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Tillamook Oregon
Posts: 795
Default Re: Again already

On the Wilson,Nestucca,and Siletz we have great oportunity to fish for Wildbroodstock hatchery fish and great native runs
__________________
Jack Smith


"When you get in the end zone you otta act like you been there before."
Jack Smith is offline  
Old 12-06-2005, 12:32 AM   #113
SSPey
Chromer
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Oregon
Posts: 896
Default Re: Again already

Siletz River Wild Summer Adult returns, by year:

1994 153
1995 77
1996 118
1997 44
1998 223
1999 311
2000 419
2001 554
2002 727
2003 892
2004 508

Hatchery (broodstock) fish dominate the run. ODFW thinks the brats might be a factor in the weak status of wild fish. That's why they don't allow the summer brats to pass upriver anymore. Such separation is all but impossible to achieve downriver in the winter.
SSPey is offline  
Old 12-06-2005, 12:43 AM   #114
Jack Smith
Chromer
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Tillamook Oregon
Posts: 795
Default Re: Again already

One thing that Chris doesn't mention in his post is that in addition to all of the natural and man made disasters that he chronicals,these North Coast rivers have for decades been augmented by out of basin hatchery fish.Prior to finclipping and the mandatory release of wild fish, intense mixed stock fisheries also occured on these rivers. In the winter of 1980-81 the ODFW began taking and reading scale samples on the Oregon Coast for the first time.The make up of the harvested fish at that time was as follows. Nestucca 61% hatchery 39% wild Siletz 73% hatchery 27% wild Alsea 88% hatchery 12% wild Siuslaw 81% hatchery 19% wild Chetco 53% hatchery 47% wild So, decades of out of basin hatchery fish with some years well over half of the returning adults of hatchery origin and still at least on the North Coast we have very healthy if not amazing runs of native fish.
__________________
Jack Smith


"When you get in the end zone you otta act like you been there before."
Jack Smith is offline  
Old 12-06-2005, 12:49 AM   #115
Jack Smith
Chromer
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Tillamook Oregon
Posts: 795
Default Re: Again already

During that same time period all rivers on the North Coast experienced similar surges in fish numbers both hatchery rivers and those without hatcheries. I am curious as to why you left out the 2005 return numbers and noticed the 2004 numbers had declined.
__________________
Jack Smith


"When you get in the end zone you otta act like you been there before."
Jack Smith is offline  
Old 12-06-2005, 09:38 AM   #116
Uglygreen
King Salmon
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Tigard, Oregon
Posts: 6,139
Default Re: For your information. some thoughts to ponder...

Scott, Travis, Chris, Bruce, Kieth, you have my agreement and support.

For me, its pretty simple. In every river where a WBS program has been implimented - the harvest oppertunities have remained and the situation of the wild fish has improved measurably.

Fitness percentages, genetics, dollars, and whatever else are nice for argueing any particular agenda, but the total trend (seasonal fluctuations aside) is one of increasing wild populations and increasing harvest opertunities. That is fact. The situation today is improved over 10 or 20 years ago, and continues to improve today. I have more and better oppertunities to fish than I did 10 years ago. To put it simply, in 2005 more water is open, seasons are expanded, and there are more fish in that water to catch than in 1995 in every watershed I know of. This is especially true for wild fish populations. With WBS, habitat improvement, and other management and regulatory changes I see happening today - I belive my kids will have more and better opperunities to fish in the future than we do now. That is the ultimate fact I see. I applaude that.

So no doom and gloom for me. The trend is my friend and we are moving in the right direction.

Brad
Uglygreen is offline  
Old 12-06-2005, 10:29 AM   #117
The Greek
 
The Greek's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Portland and Tillamook Bay
Posts: 1,302
Default Re: Again already

Stew....I agree with all seven,... er.., I mean six of your points. I dont think you could put your bobber and jig rod away for the winter. Have you ever tried eggs on your jig? :grin:

By the way, if anyone is interested in learning more about what perils our salmon and steelhead have faced over the last 100+ years. Pick up "Salmon without Rivers" by Jim Lichatowich. Very educational read.
__________________


503-349-1377
G.LOOMIS & SHIMANO PROSTAFF
FISHERMANS MARINE & OUTDOOR PROSTAFF
NW GUIDES & ANGLERS ASSOC.
http://northwestanglingexperience.com
The Greek is offline  
Old 12-06-2005, 10:38 AM   #118
Stew
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Again already

Quote:
I dont think you could put your bobber and jig rod away for the winter
Yep! Sold it so the temptation is removed
 
Old 12-06-2005, 11:12 AM   #119
rob allen
King Salmon
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Vancouver, WA
Posts: 6,494
Default Re: For your information. some thoughts to ponder...

" The situation today is improved over 10 or 20 years ago, and continues to improve today."

what about 20 years from now when the cumulative effects of allowing these "first " genneration hatchery fish to spawn with wild fish.. it is a cumulative effect you know. let me try to explain..

you take a wild female and a wild male. spawn them and raise the offspring in a hatchery. The ones best suited to survival in the wild die and thoes best suited for life in a hatchery survive. 3-6 years later thoes fish come back to spawn in the wild and if they are successful they add to the gene pool. 3-6 years after that some of thoes fish get selected as adults because hatchery workers cannot tell the difference. Now these fish already have genes best adapted to hatchery living, now their offspring are second generation hatchery fish, remember the effects are cumulative and never go away! these genes which are also very likely being spread to the native population at an increasing rate as the offspring of the hatchery fish are used with greater frequency in the hatchery program.. This is called Homogonizing the gene pool. In short what you end up with after a few generations is a gene pool that is less diverce and more at risk than it was before the broodstock program was started and more adapted to life in a hatchery than in the wild. This is an extremely basic genetic principle. it has to be because I understand it..

I am all for any hatchery program where hatchery fish are eliminated from the river before they spawn! this is absolutely critical regardless of what stock is used...
__________________
tired of fighting.
rob allen is offline  
Old 12-06-2005, 11:20 AM   #120
Salmonator
Sturgeon
 
Salmonator's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Posts: 4,286
Default Re: For your information. some thoughts to ponder...

Rob, at one time weren't all these genetically inferior inbred out-of-basin-stocks once removed from natives and probably suitable to spawn with wild fish for many years? Isn't it true that your "20 year theory" would have played itself out two or three times over by now? It seems like you do your best to throw out decades of hatchery practices that that by your logic should have wiped out every last native fish on the coast yet they haven't dissappeared....
__________________
Team cheesy cartopper

If I knock my own salmon off with the net in the middle of the ocean and nobody saw it, did it actually happen?
Salmonator is offline  
Closed Thread

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Cast to



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 03:05 PM.

Terms of Service
 
Page generated in 0.85978 seconds with 74 queries