IFish.net banner

1 - 20 of 57 Posts

·
Banned
Joined
·
1,272 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
The fish will ,then be "NATIVE`S" and we can`t Keep them is this really good for us ???????????? I just wonder are we losing our food now because of the demolition of the Dams ,just curious ,what do you think :food::food::food::food::food:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,569 Posts
(what follows is sarcasm. If you are unfamiliar with the concept please look it up.) I am really glad that both of you have kept abreast of the issues regarding the fisheries in the Sandy and have been involved over the last several years in regards to keeping a consumptive fishery in the river for several of the stocks involved. Without your help we never would have had a broodstock program. You clearly understand the the complexity of the situation and how many man hours have gone into insuring that a wild fish sanctuary would still exist in the waters of the upper Sandy basin while at the same time finding a way to still have a hatchery program that uses in-basin stock to avoid swamping or reducing the genetic vigor of the wild-born fish. The managers have been under intense scrutiny to make sure that the threatened wild fish would not be threated while working to make sure that a recreational fishery still existed. I really appreciate you avoiding responses that are knee jerk, conspiritorial and uninformed in nature. You really make our fisheries into something worthwhile!:passout:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,234 Posts
OOHH YEAH! Just count all the fisheries that are sooo much better than they were 20 years ago. . . . . . . . . . . . . is that crickets I hear? How 'bout them Clack summers and winters, used to have some 9+ fish days in the summer above North fork, but we had to stop that due to the natives up there. SandySteel, you're in the know here apparently, hows them natives doing in the Clack now that we've got all those nasty planter trout and summers out of there, they must be wall to wall up there in the winter now eh? It's been like 12 years hasn't it? And I spose they're planting the same amount of them broodstock fish as they were the Big Creek or Skamainia stock (what ever they were) 20 years ago? Going to be wall to wall natives and broodstock fish on the Sandy this year I spose eh?. . . . . . . . .crickets!

Complexity, sanctuary, in basin stock, swamping genetic vigor, intense scrutiny.....CONSRIRITORIAL and UNINFORMED!!!!~! What a bunch of hooey, I feel like you are talking down from some high place to us. What it boils down to is; We have fewer fish to fish for now than we did 15 or so years ago, we also have fewer places to fish for less fish. It costs much more now to fish for less fish in less places. I believe it's not going to get better any time soon either. Fishing is becoming a rich mans sport, well, salmon and steelhead are certainly are going that way. Alot of the peopel I saw applauding the demo of the dam are people that don't want to harm ANY fish! A fish petting zoo is what they envision for the future.

What I see happening is, less people fishing for your/our beloved salmon and steelhead in the future. That means less money from license sales, means more money to fish, means less people can afford to fish etc. I gain some comfort from knowing that when it gets to difficult to get three to six to ten or so salmon and steelhead per year, I just won't buy the tag again, that will make some people happy I'm guessing.

But I don't know squat, that's what being a conspiritorial and uninformed knee-jerk gets you I spose.

Smj
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
418 Posts
Well, here's what I think.

Your and my salmon numbers are dwindling all over the place. Everywhere. The "strong" hatchery program for many years hasn't rebuilt the runs to their historic highs of so many fish you could walk across the river on their backs.

But I guess I'm at a point where we need to try some new fisheries strategies on some watersheds. Not all rivers, but we need to try it with some just to see if there is a better way.

So, I would bet that in the next many years, we will see a patchwork of programs as the state gets more experimental trying to save the salmon runs. I would bet that some rivers they will change the slot limits, they will change the use of bait. Some stocking rivers might stop and go native.

I think what we all have to keep in mind is the goal is to restore the tremendous runs of fish, so that we can fish again. And that damage to the fish took a long time and restoration experiments might also take a long time.

If someone told you, to leave it alone for 10 years and if the numbers are X then you can fish natives, could you do it? If they weren't X at that time, then what different path would we take. Could you wait and see?

All I'm saying, is what can each one of us be flexible on, in order to restore the great fisheries of the state?

I'm not for petting zoos. I'm for programs with goals to restore fish and then catch them and eat them. I think these plans should have that built into them. They should have goals, time limits, and measuring points so people could see what happens.

If I have to wait, that dang that fish is going to taste good.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
19,626 Posts
So what criteria are we using for this new "Sandy Boomsday Theory"?
There are countless rivers here on the West side that have no dams, the Sandy will soon join them. Yet we see sustainable wild populations, and we have a consumptive fishery. Many South coast streams even allow the retention of 5 native steelhead annually.
Why would the Sandy be different? I have seen no plans of stopping the release of hatchery smolts, where is this information coming from?
How about we give it 8-10 years before we lower it in a hole and throw dirt on it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7 Posts
Freespool you are a very wise man. :cheers:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
418 Posts
On this PGE website they say hatchery fish will continue to be stocked in the river below the (former) dam location.

http://www.marmotdam.com/marmot_fish_02.htm

There are some interesting little movies and graphics in there.

So I guess by opening the upper river for the existing wild fish to get there and back out easier, that is the plan.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,772 Posts
There are no wild fish anymore. They are all intermingled with hatchery stock. However, there is a lot of money to be had selling the idea of wild salmon and steelhead...both for the State, Landowners and special interest groups in the form of grants and tax breaks.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
19,626 Posts
There are no wild fish anymore. They are all intermingled with hatchery stock. However, there is a lot of money to be had selling the idea of wild salmon and steelhead...both for the State, Landowners and special interest groups in the form of grants and tax breaks.
NOAA and the ODF&W/WDF&W consider any returning fish, spawned from gravel, a wild fish.
Native status is another matter for debate.
Is there any true native stocks? If you consider the straying factor, who knows?
My position is, if they are naturally occurring in a stream, I'm for protecting them, if their genes are able to get them back on the spawning beds, then they should be considered wild, and protected.
And that is the position of the government, or at least it should be.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
768 Posts
Points to ponder

1) There is a plan to continue planting hatchery raised Broodstock fish in the Sandy. However, they will phase out the cedar creek planting of most species Because of straying. The plan is to plan fish in the Bull-run river. My comment: Heck, if they are native broodstock, who cares if they stray and spawn in the river. Wasn't that the point of using native broodstock anyway???

2) There was a period of time (I can't remember when it was, the 50's?) that there was no fish passage allowed above Marmot dam. So these fish are not really native after all. They are strays from somewhere


Gary
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,569 Posts
OOHH YEAH! Just count all the fisheries that are sooo much better than they were 20 years ago. . . . . . . . . . . . . is that crickets I hear?
The crickets come from the serious decline that was happening in both basins as hatchery plants continued. After that high point in the 80's the plants continued to be at the same level. Yet the returns of both hatchery and wild fish were dropping off precipitously. It was clear that something was wrong with the scheme.

The broodstock program and the upper river sanctuary are just two things done to try to improve the fishery while working to meet ESA listing impacts.

I am the last person who wants to see anglers excluded from the rivers. The rivers belong to everyone and we need more advocates for the rivers not fewer of them. There have been forces at work who have been trying to get all hatchery fish excluded from the basin. It was the Steelheaders who fought for the establishment of the broodstock program in order to keep a hatchery program going.

I just get tired of those who see these efforts as consipiritorial against them. As though the actions to keep a hatchery program going on the Sandy was done so as to destroy the fishing. We really only had two choices with the removal of Marmot dam; no hatchery fish, or broodstock fish that are acclimated in the lower basin.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,569 Posts
Points to ponder

1) There is a plan to continue planting hatchery raised Broodstock fish in the Sandy. However, they will phase out the cedar creek planting of most species Because of straying. The plan is to plan fish in the Bull-run river. My comment: Heck, if they are native broodstock, who cares if they stray and spawn in the river. Wasn't that the point of using native broodstock anyway???

2) There was a period of time (I can't remember when it was, the 50's?) that there was no fish passage allowed above Marmot dam. So these fish are not really native after all. They are strays from somewhere


Gary
Speaking from my high place here... ;)

So what is the conclusion? Plant the heck out of the Sandy with hatchery fish and see where we get?

For question 1:
The difference is that even though they are in basin broodstock they are still considered hatchery fish. The rules that NMFS has laid down for ODFW to work with is that they can't stray into the upper basin. If they do stray it is likely they will shut down hatchery plants in the river.
The awful truth that many anglers have a hard time facing is that hatchery fish have a negative impact on wild fish. Wild fish are better at survival and reproduction. The use of broodstock for the hatchery fish reduces some of the impact but not all of it.

For question 2:
According to Doug Cramer the head biologist of PGE there has always been passage on Marmot dam.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,569 Posts
So what criteria are we using for this new "Sandy Boomsday Theory"?
There are countless rivers here on the West side that have no dams, the Sandy will soon join them. Yet we see sustainable wild populations, and we have a consumptive fishery. Many South coast streams even allow the retention of 5 native steelhead annually.
Why would the Sandy be different? I have seen no plans of stopping the release of hatchery smolts, where is this information coming from?
How about we give it 8-10 years before we lower it in a hole and throw dirt on it.
The Sandy is quite a bit different and needs additional help. One major problem it has is that it is nutrient poor. We need to supplement the nurtients with carcass plantings and habitat improvements to see a comeback for our fishery.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,914 Posts
The Sandy is quite a bit different and needs additional help. One major problem it has is that it is nutrient poor. We need to supplement the nurtients with carcass plantings and habitat improvements to see a comeback for our fishery.
Would TUNA! carks work? I bet the dogs could bring tons and tons of them to the party.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,950 Posts
I think maybe about 4 million smolts dumped into the salmon river above marmot would be nice. 4-5 years later :lurk:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,020 Posts
SandySteel,

Nice posts. Thanks for bring out the facts, even if they seem to be falling on deaf ears. Remember...You can lead a horse's to water but you can't make him think...:smash:

D.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,234 Posts
Eric...Thanks for your sensible reply to my extremely sarcastic post! While I'm fascinated with the science of the salmon and steelhead life cycle, and all that entails, I'm just common folk who buy the license and tags and expect to be able to take fish to eat. I think the majority of people that buy license and tags do it so they can catch AND eat.

Thanks for what you, and the Steelheaders do for our fisheries.

Smj
One blind, unthinking horses.
 
1 - 20 of 57 Posts
Top