Native out of the water

[BigGoonTuna]

the offspring of native and hatchery fish interbreeding have survival rates that are so low the wild fish might as well have not even returned to the river to spawn.

[ICEMAN]

the vast majority of all hatchery steelhead are clipped in this state, unless you're fishing the quinault(you need a guide there anyway), or the queets(you can keep unclipped hatchery fish as long as the dorsal height is less than 2 1/2").  there is no non-tribal commercial fishing in this state for steelhead, and you'll never get the tribes off the water.  they have treaty rights, it would be like trying to get hunters to give up their guns:  it ain't gonna happen.

sport kill hasn't helped steelhead any in this state, but it's not the only issue at hand.  the only upside to it is that it gives us an allocation of the fish - if we don't kill them all they get to hit the gravel to spawn.  if we made it CNR only on the peninsula, the tribes would get even more netting time because they get to use "forgone opportunity" to take the share that we try to designate to spawn.  the problem is there's too many guys that don't care, or believe idiotic sentiments like "if i don't kill it the indians will"(which is flat out *censored*, because the majority of sport fishermen catch fish after they've gotten past the nets).

I cringe when I hear guys call "wild fish.....WILD..." They release a whole lot of hatchery fish unclipped. Lots!   Here is what I was told directly from DFW about the percentage of clipped fish in this state; direct cut and paste from my old email on the topic...;

Thank you for your e-mail correspondence to the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) Fish Program.

Currently 45% of hatchery salmon and steelhead are released without their adipose fin being clipped.  WDFW adipose fin clips hatchery chinook, coho and steelhead and the percentages vary by region.  In Puget Sound 83% are adipose fin clipped, the Washington Coast, 45% and the Columbia River 40%, giving a statewide average of 55% adipose fin clipped.  WDFW is currently working toward mass marking fall chinook in the Columbia River and on the Washington Coast which will raise the statewide average to over 90%.  Not all hatchery fish will be marked as some are used to help rebuild wildstocks.  Not marking them prevents them from being harvested in selective fisheries and allows them to return to the streams to help rebuild these natural runs.   

If you have further questions, please email again or call  (360) 902-2700.  Our Customer Service hours are 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday.

Sincerely,
Fish Program

[ICEMAN]

And, I disagree with the rule. Hook up a fish, fight it in over gravel bars and tree trunks.... if one little lift out of the water for a pic is really that deadly maybe we should close it down...

[h20hunter]

I agree....disagree all you want...im good with that. My point is we cant ignore the reg out of disagreement. Also, we should not support others when they dont folliw a reg we disagree with.

[h2ofowlr]

Don't forget about the lawsuit against one of the local tribal hatcheries due to them not clipping any of the fish.  The lost and were mandated to clip 25% of the fish.  The real kicker is it was like 5% year 1, 10% year 2 and so on.  They should have been 25% year 1 to start.  What one group says and does is a different story.  Only reason I say this is because I worked a few hatchery spots for a few years.  But what do I know.  Could be wrong as stated.   

Another great thing is when the state decides which runs should be in which river.  Or consider what used to be native in a specific river and weed out other species of salmon to help a specific species.  Were not talking about squaw fish.  Kalama would be a great example. 

[huntnphool]

When one sounds like they believe they get to pick and choose which regs to follow it paints them in an untrue light.

 Its a good thing nobody on this site is like that, can you imagine if people chose to ignore the posted speed limit?

[Limhangerslayer]

I have caught spawned out hatchery hens in mid to late march, now those smolt don't end up clipped.  If the feds had it the way they wanted nobody would fish in a river where wild steelhead were present. Take the Yakima river for an example. Now a guy can't fish for whitefish below parker dam. And 6 to 9 thousand come up the river every year. I bet half the guys that would never keep a wild steelie wouldnt think twice about cutting the gills on a keeper sturgeon. Not many hatchery sturgeon out there. Two seconds out of the water isn't going to kill a (native) fish.

[huntnnw]

who cares... fishing is all about fun and memorys..why can some snap a photo of a fish? 

[jnevs23]

Not only does taking a wild steelhead out of water for a few seconds kill the fish within minutes, it kills every wild steelhead within 100 yards!  The only way to reverse this is getting on online threads and starting pissing matches.  Keep up the good work!

[Old Dog]

Not only does taking a wild steelhead out of water for a few seconds kill the fish within minutes, it kills every wild steelhead within 100 yards!  The only way to reverse this is getting on online threads and starting pissing matches.  Keep up the good work!

  I didn't know that.   

[huntnnw]

Not only does taking a wild steelhead out of water for a few seconds kill the fish within minutes, it kills every wild steelhead within 100 yards!  The only way to reverse this is getting on online threads and starting pissing matches.  Keep up the good work!

 

It spreads like cancer and the whole river will then be sterile

[boneaddict]

Kinda drifting off of the original intent of the OP, but I wanted to address some of your discussions about native versus non native.   Though it would be nice if there wasn't such a need for a hatchery fish......

I would like to see any such evidence and there probably isn't any in regards to a hatchery mating with a native and it being sterile etc........     The whole part of these fish laying eggs in the stream and those fish hatching, growing, and making it back to the ocean over how many obstacles, living in the ocean, and returning 2 or 3 or 4 years later....   its called natural selection.   The weak are culled out.  Instincts of the take are there, etc.   though its not a perfect wild fish mating with a wild fish, it is better than no fish at all.   Its pretty logical really.

The RULE was put in place because of idiots...yep, we have even seen them on here.  Holding the fish high above their head with their hands in the gill slot, eyes turned, blood dripping out.......or there are the solo guys, that have to have that pic, so they throw them up on the bank, dig the cell phone out, kickem back up on the bank.......

How do you suppose they could create a rule to deal with this stupidity.  OH I know, make it so they can't come out of the water.

Its pretty easy to tell what is negligence and what isn't.   Like the photo that was removed.   There was water pouring off the fish....(ooooh is that a technicality ...fish out of the water, really, water is still touching him as its running off)       anyways....       

sure, there are those that are sticklers to the law, and how do you argue with that?   I guess that is up to the WDFW and what they want to enforce.  In the meantime, I have seen two nice fish that I am sure were released successfully, and my flamethrower is about as hot as a Bic lighter at the moment.    I do have to agree that it is funny for that magazine to have that photo for all that they preach.

[h20hunter]

All good points Bone.

[Miles]

  In the meantime, I have seen two nice fish that I am sure were released successfully, and my flamethrower is about as hot as a Bic lighter at the moment.   

[WSU]

Kinda drifting off of the original intent of the OP, but I wanted to address some of your discussions about native versus non native.   Though it would be nice if there wasn't such a need for a hatchery fish......

I would like to see any such evidence and there probably isn't any in regards to a hatchery mating with a native and it being sterile etc........     The whole part of these fish laying eggs in the stream and those fish hatching, growing, and making it back to the ocean over how many obstacles, living in the ocean, and returning 2 or 3 or 4 years later....   its called natural selection.   The weak are culled out.  Instincts of the take are there, etc.   though its not a perfect wild fish mating with a wild fish, it is better than no fish at all.   Its pretty logical really.

The RULE was put in place because of idiots...yep, we have even seen them on here.  Holding the fish high above their head with their hands in the gill slot, eyes turned, blood dripping out.......or there are the solo guys, that have to have that pic, so they throw them up on the bank, dig the cell phone out, kickem back up on the bank.......

How do you suppose they could create a rule to deal with this stupidity.  OH I know, make it so they can't come out of the water.

Its pretty easy to tell what is negligence and what isn't.   Like the photo that was removed.   There was water pouring off the fish....(ooooh is that a technicality ...fish out of the water, really, water is still touching him as its running off)       anyways....       

sure, there are those that are sticklers to the law, and how do you argue with that?   I guess that is up to the WDFW and what they want to enforce.  In the meantime, I have seen two nice fish that I am sure were released successfully, and my flamethrower is about as hot as a Bic lighter at the moment.    I do have to agree that it is funny for that magazine to have that photo for all that they preach.

Here is the evidence you requested:  http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/318/5847/100 

You can sign up for a free subsription to read the full study.  Below is the abstract.  The study shows that hatchery fish lose roughly 40% of their reproductive cabability per hatchery generation (first generation, i.e. broodstock fish, produce 40% less returning adults, second generation fish produce 80% less, etc.). 

Abstract
Captive breeding is used to supplement populations of many species that are declining in the wild. The suitability of and long-term species survival from such programs remain largely untested, however. We measured lifetime reproductive success of the first two generations of steelhead trout that were reared in captivity and bred in the wild after they were released. By reconstructing a three-generation pedigree with microsatellite markers, we show that genetic effects of domestication reduce subsequent reproductive capabilities by ∼40% per captive-reared generation when fish are moved to natural environments. These results suggest that even a few generations of domestication may have negative effects on natural reproduction in the wild and that the repeated use of captive-reared parents to supplement wild populations should be carefully reconsidered.