Police seek steelhead bandits who released 25,000 fish

[huntnphool]

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.

 The salmon hatchery gene is different than the steelhead hatchery gene though, its not as 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.

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.

If left alone the fish should evolve the hatchery genes out. When you plant new fish every year you are adding that poor gene back into the run every year. You never get anywhere. The fish can evolve the hatchery gene out 100% but as soon as you breed those fish with a hatchery fish the gene is reintroduced.  You never get ahead.

Its pretty simple.  Elitist logic I guess

[Houndhunter]

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

They've been known to inter-breed   But then again not sure how that is really possible since they both arrive in the streams at differant times   Good question

Why not use the native stock for the hatcheries? Never did understand why they brought in diff fish, stock to rivers with "native" fish and would we have these issues?

[teal101]

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.

Pretty much. Huge commercial fishery for salmon. Lots of money involved. Wdfw bends over for them. Regardless of my stance I am not blind to wdfw's corruption.

[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.

Elitist logic I guess

 Oxymoron if ever there was one.

 For this discussion those hatchery/native crossbreeds are acceptable by the elitists, yourself, but in past conversations they are devil spawn at best.

 Funny how different the same fish looks depending on your argument. Hatchery/native cross spawned steelhead are inferior and unacceptable, unless of course you can't come up with a pure native breed stock, then of course they are perfectly acceptable. I see your logic now.

[steeleywhopper]

Meanwhile we are stuck without any steelhead fishing for the next 12 years in our waters of the North West. Puget Sound sportsmen ought to be livid with the WDFW for selling us out! I'm frigging pissed!!!!!!!!!! They better be lowering prices on fishing licenses after this BS move. 

[Skyvalhunter]

Now thats an imagination

[Bullkllr]

The short story I envision is quite a bit simpler:

Hatchery program for all Puget Sound rivers is cut. All rivers close to sport fishing by Jan. 15 for 2 more years. When hatchery fish no longer return, there is no reason to have a season at all, so winter steelhead seasons are closed altogether. Since wild fish numbers never return in sufficient numbers to fish on (not even c&r), seasons are never opened again. Wild fish continue to eke out a minimal existence for a few more generations. Then they too are declared extinct. Maybe we'll have pink returns for a while longer though .

[grundy53]

I just wish they would open up a mule deer hatchery so they can suppliment our declining native mulies with hatchery mulies... They could clip their tails so we know which ones are hatchery mulies... 

[teal101]

The short story I envision is quite a bit simpler:

Hatchery program for all Puget Sound rivers is cut. All rivers close to sport fishing by Jan. 15 for 2 more years. When hatchery fish no longer return, there is no reason to have a season at all, so winter steelhead seasons are closed altogether. Since wild fish numbers never return in sufficient numbers to fish on (not even c&r), seasons are never opened again. Wild fish continue to eke out a minimal existence for a few more generations. Then they too are declared extinct. Maybe we'll have pink returns for a while longer though .

So in your eyes its better to destroy the population by playing god and not fixing the issues just so we as sportsman can fish?  If the state and sportsman pull their head out of their asses and start to realize that we have destroyed this species over the past few decades and actually does something about it, they will make it.  We're not going to remove the majority of the dams, which are a huge culprit in Salmonid declines.  They need to regulate in river mining operations on sensitive watersheds.  They have closed the Wenatchee River to fishing except on special rule openings, yet they still allow unregulated in river mining year round.  That destroys redds and fry. 

This exact greed is what is killing the Colockum elk herd too.  Tons of pressure, poor management practices, un-regulated indian harvest, etc.  It's all lead to a herd that is not doing well.  I'm pretty damn right wing conservative, but the amount of ignorance when it comes to the environment by right wingers is sickening.  Many wont look past the supposed political agenda at actual science and realize some of the things the left is doing in the environmental category is good.  Sadly a lot of it is pushing an agenda and the only thing it hurts is the environment itself.

Reading:
http://www.salmonnation.com/essays/hatcheries.html

http://deptwildsalmon.org/resources/literature/hatcheries-and-enhancement/

http://www.npafc.org/new/publications/Bulletin/Bulletin%20No.%202/pages%20155-163(Noakes).PDF

[fast60eddie]

He grifted you good Pa,

[snowpack]

So in your eyes its better to destroy the population by playing god and not fixing the issues just so we as sportsman can fish?  If the state and sportsman pull their head out of their asses and start to realize that we have destroyed this species over the past few decades and actually does something about it, they will make it. 

If you shutdown the fishing, you lose fishermen and then the advocacy for fishable fish.  The greenies will still use fish for their agenda, but won't want any humans to ever catch one.  The fishermen that still live in the area give it up and play golf.  If they do go fishing it will be in Idaho, Alaska, Mexico, Florida.....just make a trip or two each year and forget about Washington. 

[Bullkllr]

The short story I envision is quite a bit simpler:

Hatchery program for all Puget Sound rivers is cut. All rivers close to sport fishing by Jan. 15 for 2 more years. When hatchery fish no longer return, there is no reason to have a season at all, so winter steelhead seasons are closed altogether. Since wild fish numbers never return in sufficient numbers to fish on (not even c&r), seasons are never opened again. Wild fish continue to eke out a minimal existence for a few more generations. Then they too are declared extinct. Maybe we'll have pink returns for a while longer though .

So in your eyes its better to destroy the population by playing god and not fixing the issues just so we as sportsman can fish?  If the state and sportsman pull their head out of their asses and start to realize that we have destroyed this species over the past few decades and actually does something about it, they will make it.  We're not going to remove the majority of the dams, which are a huge culprit in Salmonid declines.  They need to regulate in river mining operations on sensitive watersheds.  They have closed the Wenatchee River to fishing except on special rule openings, yet they still allow unregulated in river mining year round.  That destroys redds and fry. 

This exact greed is what is killing the Colockum elk herd too.  Tons of pressure, poor management practices, un-regulated indian harvest, etc.  It's all lead to a herd that is not doing well.  I'm pretty damn right wing conservative, but the amount of ignorance when it comes to the environment by right wingers is sickening.  Many wont look past the supposed political agenda at actual science and realize some of the things the left is doing in the environmental category is good.  Sadly a lot of it is pushing an agenda and the only thing it hurts is the environment itself.

Reading:
http://www.salmonnation.com/essays/hatcheries.html

http://deptwildsalmon.org/resources/literature/hatcheries-and-enhancement/

http://www.npafc.org/new/publications/Bulletin/Bulletin%20No.%202/pages%20155-163(Noakes).PDF

Well, 1st of all I wasn't suggesting that the outcome I can envision is in any way "better". It is simply what I can easily see happening...

You make a ton of good points- and I agree with most of them. I've been on the wild steelhead bandwagon for decades. I just don't see this one decision having any real positive outcomes. I have posted the reason multiple times in this thread...

 I really wish I could see the "will" it would take to bring wild steelhead back throughout the Puget Sound basin. As a society, I don't think we have it.

[snowpack]

The short story I envision is quite a bit simpler:

Hatchery program for all Puget Sound rivers is cut. All rivers close to sport fishing by Jan. 15 for 2 more years. When hatchery fish no longer return, there is no reason to have a season at all, so winter steelhead seasons are closed altogether. Since wild fish numbers never return in sufficient numbers to fish on (not even c&r), seasons are never opened again. Wild fish continue to eke out a minimal existence for a few more generations. Then they too are declared extinct. Maybe we'll have pink returns for a while longer though .

So in your eyes its better to destroy the population by playing god and not fixing the issues just so we as sportsman can fish?  If the state and sportsman pull their head out of their asses and start to realize that we have destroyed this species over the past few decades and actually does something about it, they will make it.  We're not going to remove the majority of the dams, which are a huge culprit in Salmonid declines.  They need to regulate in river mining operations on sensitive watersheds.  They have closed the Wenatchee River to fishing except on special rule openings, yet they still allow unregulated in river mining year round.  That destroys redds and fry. 

This exact greed is what is killing the Colockum elk herd too.  Tons of pressure, poor management practices, un-regulated indian harvest, etc.  It's all lead to a herd that is not doing well.  I'm pretty damn right wing conservative, but the amount of ignorance when it comes to the environment by right wingers is sickening.  Many wont look past the supposed political agenda at actual science and realize some of the things the left is doing in the environmental category is good.  Sadly a lot of it is pushing an agenda and the only thing it hurts is the environment itself.

Reading:
http://www.salmonnation.com/essays/hatcheries.html

http://deptwildsalmon.org/resources/literature/hatcheries-and-enhancement/

http://www.npafc.org/new/publications/Bulletin/Bulletin%20No.%202/pages%20155-163(Noakes).PDF

Well, 1st of all I wasn't suggesting that the outcome I can envision is in any way "better". It is simply what I can easily see happening...

You make a ton of good points- and I agree with most of them. I've been on the wild steelhead bandwagon for decades. I just don't see this one decision having any real positive outcomes. I have posted the reason multiple times in this thread...

 I really wish I could see the "will" it would take to bring wild steelhead back throughout the Puget Sound basin. As a society, I don't think we have it.

It kind of reminds me of how a few years back Seattle was so proud that they were so fish conscious when it came to snowy/icy streets and didn't use salts and deicers on the streets.  Stated reason was fish protection.  Then they actually got a winter storm that shutdown the city and people were upset that the city wasn't using the most effective means to reopen the roads.  It was one of the main reasons that mayor was ousted.  The mayors since salt the roads.  The fish weren't really that important after all.

[teal101]

So in your eyes its better to destroy the population by playing god and not fixing the issues just so we as sportsman can fish?  If the state and sportsman pull their head out of their asses and start to realize that we have destroyed this species over the past few decades and actually does something about it, they will make it. 

If you shutdown the fishing, you lose fishermen and then the advocacy for fishable fish.  The greenies will still use fish for their agenda, but won't want any humans to ever catch one.  The fishermen that still live in the area give it up and play golf.  If they do go fishing it will be in Idaho, Alaska, Mexico, Florida.....just make a trip or two each year and forget about Washington.

Thats the shortsightedness of todays society.  It is a want it now mentality and since this will take time many will just abandon it.  If fisherman give up as soon as a river is shut down it is their own fault if the river never reopens barring poor management from above, which we know will happen anyway.  It's the greed I mentioned in one of my previous posts.