IFish.net banner

1 - 20 of 97 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,494 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
Ok the debate has raged and will continue to rage i am sure.

BUT.. seeing as how hatchery fish are planted in almost every river in oregon and Washington and that they are always damaging to wild fish.( according to all the available science they are)

What are you willing to give up for the future of wild steelhead?

Before you answer think about this:

Until recently and even still now our rivers are managed almost entirely for hatchery production!!
We the pro wild fish community almost never get anything we ask for and have nothing that we can concede in any compromise with the pro hatchery folks. So what are the pro hatchery people willing to give up to make a compromise work????
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,380 Posts
BUT.. seeing as how hatchery fish are planted in almost every river in oregon and Washington and that they are always damaging to wild fish.( according to all the available science they are)
<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">Wow, you sure like tossing gas on a fire don't you.
True Broodstock, meaning fish that are propagated from new wild parents every generation, are not damaging to wild runs. Look at the siletz, from the reports I have heard, there are considerably more unclipped fish on the river now, than before the broodstock program was inplace. I will concede that in some cases it hatchery fish can interbreed with wild fish, but the run timings differ pretty significantly, in many cases.
If OFDW and WFDW didn't manage for hatchery fish the # of liscenses bought would fall signifacntly and money for research and preservation would peter out. With populations the way they are today, supporting a harvest of wild fish in our streams near urban areas could be distastrous.
There are much larger fish to fry then hatcheries. Get the NETS out of our rivers, both native and commercial. Work on fixing stream habitat and work to curtail pollution. These are things that most fisherman would agree need to be done. If we work together, things can change for the better, but to come in with the hope of rileing people up and dividing our user group is petty and wrong. :mad: :mad:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,494 Posts
Discussion Starter #4
Washougal river


1. excellent habitat!!!!(best it's been in 100 years!!!
2. only skamania stock summer runs are used
3. No commercial , sport or tribal harvest
4. wild run in the crapper starting at a time that coincides perfectly with the opening of the Skamania hatchery!!!!


I ask again... What are you willing to give up???

what would you ask the pro wild fish people to give up??? we have nothing to give up but what would you ask for?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,534 Posts
Hatcheries ALWAYS damaging to wild fish. I don't think that is a truthful statement based on the Hatchery Scientific Review Group's report

But gee, who am I to argue with Rob Allen? I am sure he knows far more than top scientific experts. The report says 500 changes need to be made up here, not close all hatcheries. :rolleyes:

So I am willing to give up whatever this fine group of experts tells me to give up. Some hatcheries WILL have to close in Washington. Doesn't look like all need to.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,824 Posts
Frankly I don't think people are willing to give up anything. Unless you come up with some more examples. This one you're talking about sounds like an isolated incident. Nature causes natural fluxes in returning fish and the causes are out of our hands. Some things you can't put a figure to (like how many sea lions feasted on natives compared to hatchery fish this year) and things like floods hurting eggs and reproduction.

Fact is, hatchery fish are only taken from wild ones and has been the practice for the last 10-12 years at least that I know of if not longer. They're releasing the smolts at an earlier stage to keep from getting accustomed to the tanks. So there are things that are being done to minimize the effect of hatchery fish rearing. Sportsman spend millions in keeping up to date and to help the rivers every year. Can all the other organizations that use this resource say the same thing??? Can't say I've ever heard of the commercials or indians spend a lot of time and money on this one. Asking us what are we willing to give up?? My answer is nothing until those other people I mentioned do a little also.

tc
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,268 Posts
Winter Steelhead or Summer Steelhead on the Washougal?

Nature fills excellent habitat.

There is commercial harvest. Steelhead kelts get harvested in mainstem net fisheries all the time. On the coast, rerun fish make up 20% of the overall run, below bonneville, they're like 5%.

I would ask the pro-wild fish fish people to work within the community instead of trying to heavy -hand efforts from outside. I'd also ask them to produce some shining examples of recovery. In Oregon, there are no hatchery fish in the Salmonberry, haven't been for years and years. Capable habititat. Where's the huge recovery? Where's the thriving wild run. It's good, no doubt, but no better than areas of the Wilson, Nestucca, Salmon, etc. Rock Creek, an upper tributary of the Nehalem had its hatchery production pulled. There are, and will continue to be wild fish, but no massive recovery. I'd like the wild fish people to adopt some of these streams and bring their message to fruition. SHOW ME. We're not expanding hatchery practices, they're shrinking, so please adopt some watersheds and bring some positive examples of a future you'd like the public to embrace, instead of rolling over places like the Mollala, Upper Clackamas, Upper Siletz, to name a few more lost hatchery projects that the wild fish community has abandoned once the hatchery fish have been removed.
The irritation for me is that wild fish groups keep moving to the next hatchery project. Its a good message that raises money for those organizations. Maybe the real nuts and bolts, effecting opportunites that are currently available, does not pull the cash and therefore get forgotton. My perception of these groups may change (and I hope they do) when you can show me that the Mollala wild run or the Upper Clackamas wild run tracks consistently better than the North Santiam.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,512 Posts
Regarding the upper Clack:
ODFW decided to discontinue planting it because the wild steelhead population dropped to a low of 122 fish in the mid 1990's after averaging about 2000 fish for decades. Competition with wild smolts was one of a number of conserns. This was not a decision made by or for conservation groups. The upper Clack is particularly suited to extinction of the runs because fish have to cross one of the steepest fish ladders in the world, then one of the longest. Radio tracking studies done by several agencies in the 90's found wild steelhead repeatedly approaching Rivermill dam, then swimming back downstream because they couldn't/wouldn't use the ladder there. Consider also that the Clackamas run may not be the most able to survive unusual conditions in the river because it is not a native run, that is there was no fish passage to the upper river for 20 years in the mid 1900's. The run is recovering since the plantings were discontinued.

By the way, the Salmonberry run is also largely non-native, having had large hatchery plants in the early 1900's. For my money however, there are more fish per mile in the Nehalem/Salmonberry system than the other N. coast rivers, but I don't know how accurately they're counted (on the north coast as a whole). Just a personal observation. You can walk the Salmonberry in late March and spot 50 steelhead from the tracks in the first 5 miles. (much harder to get them to bite!)

To compare the wild run on one river to another without taking into account every single detail of the rivers' history and habitat just isn't valid.
Personally, I'd like to have some stocked rivers and some not. Look at the John Day as an example of what some unstocked rivers could be like. Not a single plant and it gets a huge run of summer steelhead.

Rob may be a "little" opinionated, but he's got a point about there being few rivers free of hatchery fish. Certainly the planted fish have a negative effect on wild fish in some rivers, if not all. Even ODFW supports that view.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,534 Posts
POS_Clerk.

Was there something specific you wanted to direct my attention to? I am now on page 14 reading about the recommendation of new steelhead management with "Wild Steelhead Management Zones"

So far, this is pretty cool stuff! I am liking the parts where managers HAVE to listen to scientists for a change. :tongue:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,425 Posts
Rob,

What folks have to give up are their entrenched, counterproductive attitudes where they can't work with other pro-salmon groups due to "religious" differences. Folks also have to put salmon restoration first. If salmon restoration conflicts with some other personal special interest, then folks have to make a choice for salmon restoration. As examples, don't like gill nets so they can't work with commericial fishermen on many issues. Pro-logging and won't put salmon ahead of timber corps. Pro-river transport and won't put salmon ahead of barge biz. Pro-development and won't put salmon ahead of real estate biz. Those are tough choices if it's your job on the line.

I think all those things can exist but the key has to be only in a way that doesn't hurt salmon restoration.

An approach that I'd hope everyone could agree on would be:

1. Restoring the native runs to minimum of 50% of historic count. As an example that would be 8 million fish in the Columbia River Basin vs. current 2-3 million total of which 80% are hatchery. 50% is a realistic restoration goal based on restoration work such as Chinook River Restoration.

2. Using hatcheries appropriately with good science to restore, replace and/or supplement native runs.

Asking folks to give up hatchery fish with no real chance of replacement by native fish is a non-starter.

If fishermen are constantly divided over this issue, those opposed to salmon restoration will win.

Trout Unlimited and Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission biologists noted that hatcheries can play a role in restoration of native runs to the point that hatcheries can be closed as native runs strengthen.

Key is for all fishermen to work for salmon restoration via habitat restoration which includes ocean conditions.

United fishermen (including commercials) and hunters, birders, etc. combined with enviromental lobby would be a very powerful political force. One that could win a lot of victories for fishermen, hunters and environmentalists.

Brion
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
437 Posts
Cosmo pretty much speaks for me here. I've already "given up" the Summer Steelhead fisheries on the Upper Clackamas, the Molalla and the Salmon Rivers.

Here's a link to my "April" online photo album http://www.picturetrail.com/gallery/view?p=999&gid=2010369&uid=623942 .

All the pictures above #600 are hatchery fish taken within the last 35 days. And, there's lots more but they haven't been uploaded yet. It's nice to have something to fish for. It's why I buy a license.

There's a big gap between being "pro wild fish" and "anti hatchery fish." I've already given up some of my favorite hatchery steelhead fisheries. Given this, I'd ask what the "wild fish only" people are willing to do to fill the gaps they've left behind?

[ 05-07-2003, 10:59 AM: Message edited by: KillerDave ]
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,030 Posts
I'm not willing to give up anything. If you want compromise then Broodstock is the answer.

I would guess that 90% of fisherman don't care what the origin of the fish they catch are, they just want to catch fish. Broodstock is the only way to get and maintain good numbers of strong healthy fish in our rivers and streams. Brood Stock programs are working.

Having said that there are enough rivers like the Molalla etc. where the 10% or less of the "enviromentalist-fisherman in disguise" can go toss flies at fish with "superior" chromosomes.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,268 Posts
Wild Chrome
You have great points about the past, but where don't you have past interactions and experiences on rivers?
I do agree with you in the end. I beleive we have opportunities to work with rivers with no hatchery interference already. Before concluding it is the holy grail, we need to show some results which will take time.
If every river is different, as you say, and comparisons are invalid, how can success be judged?
Rob Allen promotes a hard swing to the other end of the spectrum, away from the more hatchery fish everywhere end. The balance point is somewhere between (not necessarily in the middle). We need to find where the best balance lies.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,534 Posts
I have read a portion of the link POS_Clerk posted. While 500 changes have been recommended, many are minor ones.

As complicated as the systems are, my biggest worry is funding. It's great to get managers to agree to the changes recommended by scientists, but who will convince the various governments to fund this?

:depressed: Uh oh.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,380 Posts
Rob,
Give me examples, besides the washougal, where removing the htcheries would be more beneficial than say, fixing habitat, removing damns, or getting the nets out. There are a few rivers that hatchery plants aren't needed on, but removing hatcheries on all streams is ludacris. Your argument sounds similar to Washington Trouts, which is an extremeist group (imho). Look who there sponsors are;
1. Indian tribes, including the yakima nation which knowingly nets endangered spring chinook on the yakima river and the Skallam tribe which most likely nets more than a couple of the ESA protected chinook that their suing to protect.
2.BPA and Seattle public utilities, both companies own Damns that harm both wild and hatchery salmon. (and they both have hatcheries which they are requied to pay for by either state or federal law :blush: )
So where is their agenda truly based, saving runs or ending hatcheries?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,494 Posts
Discussion Starter #17
you guys are assuming WAYYYYY!!!! too much

I am trying to come up with a compromise so we can work together!!! I do not want hatcheries taken off ever river! But it seems clear that you pro hatchery fols are unwilling to do anything to benefit our wild fish.

As far as examples go.. I have given dozens of them over the years to this forum. Also there is absolutely NO evidence to suggest that the salmonberry steelhead are anything but pure native salmonberry stock. I spoke at lenght with a regional ODFW biologist specifically about the salmonberry and the accusations that they are all of hatchery origin initially and he assured me that that was false.


Also there are very few places where the hatchery stock comes directly from wild stock.

I'll have to edit this message after i read more responces
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,534 Posts
Rob Allen,

pro hatchery fols
<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">:laugh: Did you mean hatchery folks or fools when you posted that?

I don't consider myself pro hatchery. I consider myself pro let's get all these issues dealt with ASAP. Yup, all 4 H's.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,380 Posts
In washington its different I guess. In Oregon, there are just as many river w/o hatchery production as there are with. Many rivers also only get one or 2 hatchery runs of fish, availiable only a short time of the year.
Rob, there are steps being taken every year to ensure that more and more stocks are switched over wild origin.

[ 05-07-2003, 04:31 PM: Message edited by: willametteriveroutlaw ]
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,494 Posts
Discussion Starter #20
Ever since we started to use out stocks of fish on a large scale for food we have opperated off of assumptions. First we assumed that salmon and steelhead were so plantiful that we couldn't possibly fish them to extinction yet upper river sockeye were among the first to go. The it was assumed that man could produce salmon just like we produce cattle well that failed too. Then inspite of that failure we thought pouring more money into hatcheries would solve all the problems caused by dams. We were wrong.. Every assumption we have made about salmon and our managment of them has been wrong! I like somewhat the idea of wild broodstocks however again we are basing the future managment of the resource on an assumption! We have never waited for the scince to tell us what to do we just rush ahead with what sounds good to us. Seeing as how we have a losing record with past assumptions I think it foolish to think that wild broodstocks are the answer.meanwhile our runs slip further and further towards extinction inspite of minimal harvest and excellent habitat.

Lets take a quick tour of our rivers for a moment I'll start in the Columbia moving east to west.


Grand Ronde: large hatchery plants
Umatilla: large hatchery plants
John Day: no hatchery plants but large numbers of strays
Deschutes: huge hatchery plants and large numbers of strays
Hood river: hatchery plants
Sandy: hatchery plants
Clackamas: huge hatchery plants
Santiam: hatchery plants
Mckenzie : hatchery plants
Mollala: ?
necanicum: hatchery plants
Nehalem: hatchery plants in N fork
Kilchis: hatchery plants
Wilson: hatchery plants
Trask: hatchery plants
Tillimook : ?
nestucca: hatchery plants
salmon river: ?
Siletz river: hatchery plants
Yaquina river: ?
Alsea: hatchery plants
Siuslaw: ?
Umpqua: hatchery plants
coose river:?
Coqulle: hatchery plants
sixes river:?
Elk river: hatchery plants
rogue: hatchery plants
Applegate: hatchery plants
Illinois : small hatchery plants
Pistol river: hatchery plants
winchuck river: hatchery plants
chetco river: hatchery plants

Thats all the major rivers in oregon and many tributaries
where are all the rivers with no hatchery fish at all???
 
1 - 20 of 97 Posts
Top