Police seek steelhead bandits who released 25,000 fish

[huntnphool]

Can someone explain to me why hatchery steelhead are detrimental to wild? I would think they would take pressure off the native stock.

To start they are of different genetics.  Each stream in a watershed has its own genetics.  The fish that spawn up Nason Creek are different genetically than the ones that head up the Chiwawa which are different from the ones up the Chumstick which are different from the ones up Mission Creek as well as different from the ones spawning in the main stem Wenatchee.  Most hatchery programs in this state use a stock from the McCloud River in California.  Introduction of these genetics muddies the native stocks producing fish that are truly non native.  Studies have shown the muddling of genetics hinders true native genetics reproduction.

Second the hatchery fish compete directly with native fish in many aspects.  First is spawning grounds.  The hatchery fish will displace native spawners.  They will create redds in native spawning areas reducing the amount of real estate for true native fish to spawn.  After that the hatchery genetic spawn compete directly with the native spawn for resources such as food and shelter.

Now at this point you might be asking, "Well if the hatchery fish spawn in the wild arent they now "wild"fish?".  yes to an extent.  They are wild, they are not native.  The issue relates back to genetics where it has been shown that the traits and habits hatchery fish pick up in the hatchery are passed on in their genetics to their spawn.  When they spawn with natives or with each other they produce fish with the genetic dispositions.  The genetic dispositions of hatchery fish are directly related to their life in a hatchery.  They tend to have a lower escapement rate in the wild than natives.  They have adapted to life in a hatchery and pass that on to their wild spawn.  Those adaptations hinder them in the wild.  As the hatchery fish muddy the genetic pool these traits are bred into the spawn creating a genetically inferior line of fish.

Removing hatcheries that are introducing non native genetic strains eliminates most of these issues.  It allows the natives to reproduce naturally with the stronger genetics native to their natal waters.  There are hatcheries utilizing native stock for hatchery fish.  They curtail the non native genetic mixing, but still introduce poor hatchery traits learned in the hatchery to the native stock, albeit to a lesser degree since most of the fish contain pure native genes and not those genetics that have been raised in hatcheries for decades.

You see, this is the BS that is constantly spewed by the elitists, when in reality not one of them, you included, can tell us with 100% certainty that any "native" fish remaining in these systems, are actually 100% "native" fish.

 With your own words you admit that it's been decades that hatchery fish have been returning to the rivers with the natives. If the hatchery fish indeed caused the decline, BS, of native fish, then wouldn't at some point the number of native fish have been declining at a constant rate? Wouldn't,by now, they be so few in the rivers, if any, that only a handful of 100% "native" fish be left? And if that's the case, how do we get back to those 100% "native" genes that we started with?

 The answer is they can't! I'd be willing to bet that the fish in the rivers here, by now, have some small percentage of the "inferior" hatchery gene in them, from natural cross spawning, making this pipe dream all the more a joke.

 So now, they get the highest percent of "native"gene fish and breed them with another high percentage "native" gene fish and magically this new smolt is considered "native", when in reality it's got some of those inferior genes. But hey, it fits the agenda so let's ignore all the elitist excuses how these genes make there new "native" fish "inferior"

[teal101]

Can someone explain to me why hatchery steelhead are detrimental to wild? I would think they would take pressure off the native stock.

To start they are of different genetics.  Each stream in a watershed has its own genetics.  The fish that spawn up Nason Creek are different genetically than the ones that head up the Chiwawa which are different from the ones up the Chumstick which are different from the ones up Mission Creek as well as different from the ones spawning in the main stem Wenatchee.  Most hatchery programs in this state use a stock from the McCloud River in California.  Introduction of these genetics muddies the native stocks producing fish that are truly non native.  Studies have shown the muddling of genetics hinders true native genetics reproduction.

Second the hatchery fish compete directly with native fish in many aspects.  First is spawning grounds.  The hatchery fish will displace native spawners.  They will create redds in native spawning areas reducing the amount of real estate for true native fish to spawn.  After that the hatchery genetic spawn compete directly with the native spawn for resources such as food and shelter.

Now at this point you might be asking, "Well if the hatchery fish spawn in the wild arent they now "wild"fish?".  yes to an extent.  They are wild, they are not native.  The issue relates back to genetics where it has been shown that the traits and habits hatchery fish pick up in the hatchery are passed on in their genetics to their spawn.  When they spawn with natives or with each other they produce fish with the genetic dispositions.  The genetic dispositions of hatchery fish are directly related to their life in a hatchery.  They tend to have a lower escapement rate in the wild than natives.  They have adapted to life in a hatchery and pass that on to their wild spawn.  Those adaptations hinder them in the wild.  As the hatchery fish muddy the genetic pool these traits are bred into the spawn creating a genetically inferior line of fish.

Removing hatcheries that are introducing non native genetic strains eliminates most of these issues.  It allows the natives to reproduce naturally with the stronger genetics native to their natal waters.  There are hatcheries utilizing native stock for hatchery fish.  They curtail the non native genetic mixing, but still introduce poor hatchery traits learned in the hatchery to the native stock, albeit to a lesser degree since most of the fish contain pure native genes and not those genetics that have been raised in hatcheries for decades.

You see, this is the BS that is constantly spewed by the elitists, when in reality not one of them, you included, can tell us with 100% certainty that any "native" fish remaining in these systems, are actually 100% "native" fish.

 With your own words you admit that it's been decades that hatchery fish have been returning to the rivers with the natives. If the hatchery fish indeed caused the decline, BS, of native fish, then wouldn't at some point the number of native fish have been declining at a constant rate? Wouldn't,by now, they be so few in the rivers, if any, that only a handful of 100% "native" fish be left? And if that's the case, how do we get back to those 100% "native" genes that we started with?

 The answer is they can't! I'd be willing to bet that the fish in the rivers here, by now, have some small percentage of the inferior hatchery gene in them, from natural cross spawning, making this pipe dream all the more a joke.

 So now, they get the highest percent of "native"gene fish and breed them with another high percentage "native" gene fish and magically this new smolt is considered "native", when in reality it's got some of those inferior genes. But hey, it fits the agenda so let's ignore all the elitist excuses how these genes make there new "native" fish "inferior"

Thats the sad part, there probably are little if any true 100% genetic native fish in most systems.  Many hatcheries are not at the headwaters though so many native fish can spawn above the hatchery and still produce 100% native fish.  Granted the hatchery fish possess the survival trait of all Salmonids to seek out new spawning areas besides their natal redd to save the population as a whole in case of a catastrophic event.  I can not believe all native genetic stocks have been compromised, but I do believe most have to some extent or another.

The hatchery fish have not caused the decline, I've listed the many major reasons that have.  The hatchery fish are in no way helping bolster the numbers.  I would assume there would be a marked gradual decline due to genetic inferiority, but no long term studies have been implemented or completed.  Short term studies have showing that hatchery fish do impact the current "native" fish negatively though.

Let me ask you this, is the solution to continue to muddy the genes down with new non native genes?  I believe the solution is to stop the planting of the non native genes so the current "native" fish can return to true native fish.  Generations down the line the poor genetics will have been bread out by natural spawning and genetic adaptation.  If we continue to muddy the genes we give these fish no chance to return themselves to natives.  They got there by themselves at one point in time, they have the ability to adapt and evolve back to true native fish.

[snowpack]

You should not shut down all Puget Sound rivers at one time to make they native fish rivers.  THAT IS BS in my mind.

Pick 2 or 3 and lets see how they do and take data metrics as the river comes back.  I think many of you have no idea that pen raised salmon are bad for native and hatchery fish.  If we are going back to native there should be no salmon pens near the path of the Native river.

There actually have been a few rivers that are within the Puget Sound Steelhead area that have had hatchery fish discontinued for a while.  I think most of the Hood Canal rivers had summer run discontinued in the early 90's and then didn't plant winter runs but every third or fourth year on a reduced level until the early 00's when winters were discontinued too.  Two of the streams in the far south end have a broodstock program going on now.  The other rivers haven't had any improvement that I am aware of. 

[huntnphool]

Can someone explain to me why hatchery steelhead are detrimental to wild? I would think they would take pressure off the native stock.

To start they are of different genetics.  Each stream in a watershed has its own genetics.  The fish that spawn up Nason Creek are different genetically than the ones that head up the Chiwawa which are different from the ones up the Chumstick which are different from the ones up Mission Creek as well as different from the ones spawning in the main stem Wenatchee.  Most hatchery programs in this state use a stock from the McCloud River in California.  Introduction of these genetics muddies the native stocks producing fish that are truly non native.  Studies have shown the muddling of genetics hinders true native genetics reproduction.

Second the hatchery fish compete directly with native fish in many aspects.  First is spawning grounds.  The hatchery fish will displace native spawners.  They will create redds in native spawning areas reducing the amount of real estate for true native fish to spawn.  After that the hatchery genetic spawn compete directly with the native spawn for resources such as food and shelter.

Now at this point you might be asking, "Well if the hatchery fish spawn in the wild arent they now "wild"fish?".  yes to an extent.  They are wild, they are not native.  The issue relates back to genetics where it has been shown that the traits and habits hatchery fish pick up in the hatchery are passed on in their genetics to their spawn.  When they spawn with natives or with each other they produce fish with the genetic dispositions.  The genetic dispositions of hatchery fish are directly related to their life in a hatchery.  They tend to have a lower escapement rate in the wild than natives.  They have adapted to life in a hatchery and pass that on to their wild spawn.  Those adaptations hinder them in the wild.  As the hatchery fish muddy the genetic pool these traits are bred into the spawn creating a genetically inferior line of fish.

Removing hatcheries that are introducing non native genetic strains eliminates most of these issues.  It allows the natives to reproduce naturally with the stronger genetics native to their natal waters.  There are hatcheries utilizing native stock for hatchery fish.  They curtail the non native genetic mixing, but still introduce poor hatchery traits learned in the hatchery to the native stock, albeit to a lesser degree since most of the fish contain pure native genes and not those genetics that have been raised in hatcheries for decades.

You see, this is the BS that is constantly spewed by the elitists, when in reality not one of them, you included, can tell us with 100% certainty that any "native" fish remaining in these systems, are actually 100% "native" fish.

 With your own words you admit that it's been decades that hatchery fish have been returning to the rivers with the natives. If the hatchery fish indeed caused the decline, BS, of native fish, then wouldn't at some point the number of native fish have been declining at a constant rate? Wouldn't,by now, they be so few in the rivers, if any, that only a handful of 100% "native" fish be left? And if that's the case, how do we get back to those 100% "native" genes that we started with?

 The answer is they can't! I'd be willing to bet that the fish in the rivers here, by now, have some small percentage of the inferior hatchery gene in them, from natural cross spawning, making this pipe dream all the more a joke.

 So now, they get the highest percent of "native"gene fish and breed them with another high percentage "native" gene fish and magically this new smolt is considered "native", when in reality it's got some of those inferior genes. But hey, it fits the agenda so let's ignore all the elitist excuses how these genes make there new "native" fish "inferior"

Thats the sad part, there probably are little if any true 100% genetic native fish in most systems.  Many hatcheries are not at the headwaters though so many native fish can spawn above the hatchery and still produce 100% native fish.  Granted the hatchery fish possess the survival trait of all Salmonids to seek out new spawning areas besides their natal redd to save the population as a whole in case of a catastrophic event.  I can not believe all native genetic stocks have been compromised, but I do believe most have to some extent or another.

The hatchery fish have not caused the decline, I've listed the many major reasons that have.  The hatchery fish are in no way helping bolster the numbers.  I would assume there would be a marked gradual decline due to genetic inferiority, but no long term studies have been implemented or completed.  Short term studies have showing that hatchery fish do impact the current "native" fish negatively though.

Let me ask you this, is the solution to continue to muddy the genes down with new non native genes?  I believe the solution is to stop the planting of the non native genes so the current "native" fish can return to true native fish.  Generations down the line the poor genetics will have been bread out by natural spawning and genetic adaptation.  If we continue to muddy the genes we give these fish no chance to return themselves to natives.  They got there by themselves at one point in time, they have the ability to adapt and evolve back to true native fish.

I have to get out the door and will get back later, but let me ask this. If the hatchery fish are inferior, and posses bad traits, and we truly do not have a 100% "native" fish left, then why are the "native" fish remaining in these systems with this "inferior" gene, all of a sudden acceptable to use as the new "native" base?

 Seems like these cross spawned fish are considered "native" as long as it suits the elitists agenda, how convenient!

[haugenna]

They will open the river back up for native fish once habitat has been restored and once we have 15 breeding pairs of fish under every rock, branch and stump.

 

[teal101]

Can someone explain to me why hatchery steelhead are detrimental to wild? I would think they would take pressure off the native stock.

To start they are of different genetics.  Each stream in a watershed has its own genetics.  The fish that spawn up Nason Creek are different genetically than the ones that head up the Chiwawa which are different from the ones up the Chumstick which are different from the ones up Mission Creek as well as different from the ones spawning in the main stem Wenatchee.  Most hatchery programs in this state use a stock from the McCloud River in California.  Introduction of these genetics muddies the native stocks producing fish that are truly non native.  Studies have shown the muddling of genetics hinders true native genetics reproduction.

Second the hatchery fish compete directly with native fish in many aspects.  First is spawning grounds.  The hatchery fish will displace native spawners.  They will create redds in native spawning areas reducing the amount of real estate for true native fish to spawn.  After that the hatchery genetic spawn compete directly with the native spawn for resources such as food and shelter.

Now at this point you might be asking, "Well if the hatchery fish spawn in the wild arent they now "wild"fish?".  yes to an extent.  They are wild, they are not native.  The issue relates back to genetics where it has been shown that the traits and habits hatchery fish pick up in the hatchery are passed on in their genetics to their spawn.  When they spawn with natives or with each other they produce fish with the genetic dispositions.  The genetic dispositions of hatchery fish are directly related to their life in a hatchery.  They tend to have a lower escapement rate in the wild than natives.  They have adapted to life in a hatchery and pass that on to their wild spawn.  Those adaptations hinder them in the wild.  As the hatchery fish muddy the genetic pool these traits are bred into the spawn creating a genetically inferior line of fish.

Removing hatcheries that are introducing non native genetic strains eliminates most of these issues.  It allows the natives to reproduce naturally with the stronger genetics native to their natal waters.  There are hatcheries utilizing native stock for hatchery fish.  They curtail the non native genetic mixing, but still introduce poor hatchery traits learned in the hatchery to the native stock, albeit to a lesser degree since most of the fish contain pure native genes and not those genetics that have been raised in hatcheries for decades.

You see, this is the BS that is constantly spewed by the elitists, when in reality not one of them, you included, can tell us with 100% certainty that any "native" fish remaining in these systems, are actually 100% "native" fish.

 With your own words you admit that it's been decades that hatchery fish have been returning to the rivers with the natives. If the hatchery fish indeed caused the decline, BS, of native fish, then wouldn't at some point the number of native fish have been declining at a constant rate? Wouldn't,by now, they be so few in the rivers, if any, that only a handful of 100% "native" fish be left? And if that's the case, how do we get back to those 100% "native" genes that we started with?

 The answer is they can't! I'd be willing to bet that the fish in the rivers here, by now, have some small percentage of the inferior hatchery gene in them, from natural cross spawning, making this pipe dream all the more a joke.

 So now, they get the highest percent of "native"gene fish and breed them with another high percentage "native" gene fish and magically this new smolt is considered "native", when in reality it's got some of those inferior genes. But hey, it fits the agenda so let's ignore all the elitist excuses how these genes make there new "native" fish "inferior"

Thats the sad part, there probably are little if any true 100% genetic native fish in most systems.  Many hatcheries are not at the headwaters though so many native fish can spawn above the hatchery and still produce 100% native fish.  Granted the hatchery fish possess the survival trait of all Salmonids to seek out new spawning areas besides their natal redd to save the population as a whole in case of a catastrophic event.  I can not believe all native genetic stocks have been compromised, but I do believe most have to some extent or another.

The hatchery fish have not caused the decline, I've listed the many major reasons that have.  The hatchery fish are in no way helping bolster the numbers.  I would assume there would be a marked gradual decline due to genetic inferiority, but no long term studies have been implemented or completed.  Short term studies have showing that hatchery fish do impact the current "native" fish negatively though.

Let me ask you this, is the solution to continue to muddy the genes down with new non native genes?  I believe the solution is to stop the planting of the non native genes so the current "native" fish can return to true native fish.  Generations down the line the poor genetics will have been bread out by natural spawning and genetic adaptation.  If we continue to muddy the genes we give these fish no chance to return themselves to natives.  They got there by themselves at one point in time, they have the ability to adapt and evolve back to true native fish.

I have to get out the door and will get back later, but let me ask this. If the hatchery fish are inferior, and posses bad traits, and we truly do not have a 100% "native" fish left, then why are the "native" fish remaining in these systems with this "inferior" gene, all of a sudden acceptable to use as the new "native" base?

 Seems like these cross spawned fish are considered "native" as long as it suits the elitists agenda, how convenient!

Because native fish will over time genetically evolve those poor genes out.  It's how evolution works.  The hatchery brats are 100% non native.  The "native" stock could be 50% hatchery, 3% hatchery, 75% hatchery.  It depends on the fishes parents and how long the watershed has been stocked.  Removing the source of new poor genes will allow for the current fish to evolve those poor genes out.  No they will not be the same genetic fish they were before the hatchery fish, but they will eventually be back to genetically evolved native fish.


Also there is no true native base to pull from for most watersheds so you have to start somewhere.  Using what is left of the true native genetics is the start.  Do you think continuing to dilute the remaining native genetics is the answer?  Where do you pull the native genes from to replenish the current "native" stock?

The cross spawned fish are exactly what us "elitists" are trying to eliminate.  If you take out the hatchery fish, they wont cross spawn!  I guess logic is an elitist genetic trait

[ICEMAN]

Sorry, didn't read a single post in the thread...

So how are all these "wild" steelhead getting past all the indian nets to spawn?

[RG]

The Canadians must be smarter than we are. 20 years ago I watched video of paid fishermen catching wild fish on Canadian rivers which they placed in a trap for the hatchery guys to come and pick up. These fish were used for hatchery stock.  It must have been rocket science because WDFW never caught on.  Of course I'm sure the fly fishermen still swear at fish bonkers there too.

[Bullkllr]

Sorry, didn't read a single post in the thread...

So how are all these "wild" steelhead getting past all the indian nets to spawn?

As far as I'm aware, the Puget Sound tribes have largely curtailed their fisheries directed at winter steelhead. I couldn't immediately find any hard data for winter netting schedules (if such a thing exists), but I did this from the NWIFC website:

Steelhead

Wild steelhead stocks are depressed throughout Puget Sound, and hatchery steelhead have also experienced much lower survival in the last fifteen years. Limited commercial harvest occurs on hatchery returns to the Skagit and Snohomish rivers; elsewhere tribal harvest in Puget Sound is limited to nominal subsistence and ceremonial harvest.

Steelhead returning to the Washington coastal rivers are currently more abundant, though tribal net harvest comprises primarily hatchery returns.

The only Puget Sound rivers I see a lot during the winter are the Nisqually, Puyallup, and Green; I would concur that netting days are pretty much wrapped up after the chum seasons are done. It is hard to justify (or profit from) a gillnet season when there are almost no fish returning to catch.

[Bullkllr]

The Canadians must be smarter than we are. 20 years ago I watched video of paid fishermen catching wild fish on Canadian rivers which they placed in a trap for the hatchery guys to come and pick up. These fish were used for hatchery stock.  It must have been rocket science because WDFW never caught on.  Of course I'm sure the fly fishermen still swear at fish bonkers there too.

As far as I am aware, Oregon also has wild broodstock programs on several rivers. It seems they also have fish to catch, resulting in a relatively vibrant winter steelhead sport fishery. Check out IFish during the winter. Amazing the difference between anglers' success and attitude between WA and OR.

[teal101]

The Canadians must be smarter than we are. 20 years ago I watched video of paid fishermen catching wild fish on Canadian rivers which they placed in a trap for the hatchery guys to come and pick up. These fish were used for hatchery stock.  It must have been rocket science because WDFW never caught on.  Of course I'm sure the fly fishermen still swear at fish bonkers there too.

WDFW did that on the Sol Duc and are implementing it on another river now. They are a little late to the party.

[huntnphool]

Can someone explain to me why hatchery steelhead are detrimental to wild? I would think they would take pressure off the native stock.

To start they are of different genetics.  Each stream in a watershed has its own genetics.  The fish that spawn up Nason Creek are different genetically than the ones that head up the Chiwawa which are different from the ones up the Chumstick which are different from the ones up Mission Creek as well as different from the ones spawning in the main stem Wenatchee.  Most hatchery programs in this state use a stock from the McCloud River in California.  Introduction of these genetics muddies the native stocks producing fish that are truly non native.  Studies have shown the muddling of genetics hinders true native genetics reproduction.

Second the hatchery fish compete directly with native fish in many aspects.  First is spawning grounds.  The hatchery fish will displace native spawners.  They will create redds in native spawning areas reducing the amount of real estate for true native fish to spawn.  After that the hatchery genetic spawn compete directly with the native spawn for resources such as food and shelter.

Now at this point you might be asking, "Well if the hatchery fish spawn in the wild arent they now "wild"fish?".  yes to an extent.  They are wild, they are not native.  The issue relates back to genetics where it has been shown that the traits and habits hatchery fish pick up in the hatchery are passed on in their genetics to their spawn.  When they spawn with natives or with each other they produce fish with the genetic dispositions.  The genetic dispositions of hatchery fish are directly related to their life in a hatchery.  They tend to have a lower escapement rate in the wild than natives.  They have adapted to life in a hatchery and pass that on to their wild spawn.  Those adaptations hinder them in the wild.  As the hatchery fish muddy the genetic pool these traits are bred into the spawn creating a genetically inferior line of fish.

Removing hatcheries that are introducing non native genetic strains eliminates most of these issues.  It allows the natives to reproduce naturally with the stronger genetics native to their natal waters.  There are hatcheries utilizing native stock for hatchery fish.  They curtail the non native genetic mixing, but still introduce poor hatchery traits learned in the hatchery to the native stock, albeit to a lesser degree since most of the fish contain pure native genes and not those genetics that have been raised in hatcheries for decades.

You see, this is the BS that is constantly spewed by the elitists, when in reality not one of them, you included, can tell us with 100% certainty that any "native" fish remaining in these systems, are actually 100% "native" fish.

 With your own words you admit that it's been decades that hatchery fish have been returning to the rivers with the natives. If the hatchery fish indeed caused the decline, BS, of native fish, then wouldn't at some point the number of native fish have been declining at a constant rate? Wouldn't,by now, they be so few in the rivers, if any, that only a handful of 100% "native" fish be left? And if that's the case, how do we get back to those 100% "native" genes that we started with?

 The answer is they can't! I'd be willing to bet that the fish in the rivers here, by now, have some small percentage of the inferior hatchery gene in them, from natural cross spawning, making this pipe dream all the more a joke.

 So now, they get the highest percent of "native"gene fish and breed them with another high percentage "native" gene fish and magically this new smolt is considered "native", when in reality it's got some of those inferior genes. But hey, it fits the agenda so let's ignore all the elitist excuses how these genes make there new "native" fish "inferior"

Thats the sad part, there probably are little if any true 100% genetic native fish in most systems.  Many hatcheries are not at the headwaters though so many native fish can spawn above the hatchery and still produce 100% native fish.  Granted the hatchery fish possess the survival trait of all Salmonids to seek out new spawning areas besides their natal redd to save the population as a whole in case of a catastrophic event.  I can not believe all native genetic stocks have been compromised, but I do believe most have to some extent or another.

The hatchery fish have not caused the decline, I've listed the many major reasons that have.  The hatchery fish are in no way helping bolster the numbers.  I would assume there would be a marked gradual decline due to genetic inferiority, but no long term studies have been implemented or completed.  Short term studies have showing that hatchery fish do impact the current "native" fish negatively though.

Let me ask you this, is the solution to continue to muddy the genes down with new non native genes?  I believe the solution is to stop the planting of the non native genes so the current "native" fish can return to true native fish.  Generations down the line the poor genetics will have been bread out by natural spawning and genetic adaptation.  If we continue to muddy the genes we give these fish no chance to return themselves to natives.  They got there by themselves at one point in time, they have the ability to adapt and evolve back to true native fish.

I have to get out the door and will get back later, but let me ask this. If the hatchery fish are inferior, and posses bad traits, and we truly do not have a 100% "native" fish left, then why are the "native" fish remaining in these systems with this "inferior" gene, all of a sudden acceptable to use as the new "native" base?

 Seems like these cross spawned fish are considered "native" as long as it suits the elitists agenda, how convenient!

Because native fish will over time genetically evolve those poor genes out.  It's how evolution works.  The hatchery brats are 100% non native.  The "native" stock could be 50% hatchery, 3% hatchery, 75% hatchery.  It depends on the fishes parents and how long the watershed has been stocked.  Removing the source of new poor genes will allow for the current fish to evolve those poor genes out.  No they will not be the same genetic fish they were before the hatchery fish, but they will eventually be back to genetically evolved native fish.


Also there is no true native base to pull from for most watersheds so you have to start somewhere.  Using what is left of the true native genetics is the start.  Do you think continuing to dilute the remaining native genetics is the answer?  Where do you pull the native genes from to replenish the current "native" stock?

The cross spawned fish are exactly what us "elitists" are trying to eliminate.  If you take out the hatchery fish, they wont cross spawn!  I guess logic is an elitist genetic trait

So by your logic the inferior hatchery gene will eventually be gone by way of evolution naturally. Why not then continue planting fish and let them cross spawn and evolve on their own? You just said over time the inferior gene will be eliminated anyway.

[Bullkllr]

The Canadians must be smarter than we are. 20 years ago I watched video of paid fishermen catching wild fish on Canadian rivers which they placed in a trap for the hatchery guys to come and pick up. These fish were used for hatchery stock.  It must have been rocket science because WDFW never caught on.  Of course I'm sure the fly fishermen still swear at fish bonkers there too.

WDFW did that on the Sol Duc and are implementing it on another river now. They are a little late to the party.

IIRC, WDFW had little to nothing to do with Snider Creek- other than permits, etc. The OPGA (guide assoc) originated and ran the program. Probably why it actually worked; also probably why the plug was pulled on it.

The broodstock program on a couple Hood Canal streams has gotten some publicity- basically a privately funded effort to bring a couple runs back from near extinction. I'm not aware of any current WDFW programs generating any fishable numbers of broodstock-spawned steelhead. I would like to hear about any that exist.
Satsop had one- anyone know if it still exists?

[RG]

Apparently OPGA forgot to grease their political connections I guess. They actually wanted to let people catch a few fish too.  Once again it comes back to its not about what's good for the sportsmen and women it's only about the special interest politics and baçk room deals. Nobody is allowed to participate if they can't be censored and controlled. It's just too bad they have to ruin a superb fishery that was enjoyed by hundreds if not thousands of people just at the whim of a small group of selfish mislead people.  If hatcheries are so terrible tell me about puget sound hatchery salmon then. Hmm they mußt be different or exempt or worth more money than steelhead I guess.

[Bullkllr]

Apparently OPGA forgot to grease their political connections I guess. They actually wanted to let people catch a few fish too.  Once again it comes back to its not about what's good for the sportsmen and women it's only about the special interest politics and baçk room deals. Nobody is allowed to participate if they can't be censored and controlled. It's just too bad they have to ruin a superb fishery that was enjoyed by hundreds if not thousands of people just at the whim of a small group of selfish mislead people. If hatcheries are so terrible tell me about puget sound hatchery salmon then. Hmm they mußt be different or exempt or worth more money than steelhead I guess.

Exactly As mentioned before- salmon have the support of commercials and their lobby $$- steelhead, not so much.