Post by: vandeman17 on May 13, 2014, 03:25:00 PM
State Fish and Wildlife Hatchery managers are concerned it was an act of defiance against a new agreement that sharply curtails the state’s steelhead hatchery program. The agreement resulted from a lawsuit filed by a fish protection group, Wild Fish Conservancy, which accused the State of violating the Endangered Species Act. State Fish and Wildlife Managers agreed to stop planting winter steelhead hatchery fish in all but one river.
This set off a wave of criticism by some sport anglers who eagerly await the steelhead runs each year.
It also left the state with huge numbers of steelhead that could not be released into tributaries of Puget Sound. Whoever struck the Tokul Creek facility on the Snoqualmie appeared to know the hatchery was planning to truck its large inventory of steelhead to the east side of the state where they would be released into lakes that would not allow them to migrate to the Sound.
State Fish and Wildlife Enforcement officers and King County Sheriffs deputies are investigating the break in. Hatchery workers say whoever did it cut the lock off a tall chain link fence, entered the hatchery grounds and pulled the screens that prevented the steelhead from entering the creek and Snoqualmie River.
Private security officers have been hired to patrol the other hatcheries until police figure out if this is an isolated case or part of an organized resistance to the settlement.
Post by: Mfowl on May 13, 2014, 03:39:58 PM
Stupid NFS can stick it where the sun don't shine!
Post by: h20hunter on May 13, 2014, 03:45:41 PM
Sweet! No way I would ever turn those guys in! :tup:
Stupid NFS can stick it where the sun don't shine!
Sorry but there is no way this is a good thing. Think of the rivers and streams (or lakes per the article ) that now will not get planted. I'm no expert but I assume that the release of fish is a fairly controlled act when it comes to timing and conditions. What makes anyone think that these hatchery fish will even survive the release?
Crime and vandelism will never achieve anything positive.
Post by: jackelope on May 13, 2014, 03:48:49 PM
Sweet! No way I would ever turn those guys in! :tup:
Stupid NFS can stick it where the sun don't shine!
Sorry but there is no way this is a good thing. Think of the rivers and streams that now will not get planted. I'm no expert but I assume that the release of fish is a fairly controlled act when it comes to timing and conditions. What makes anyone think that these hatchery fish will even survive the release?
Per a recent WDFW settlement, all hatchery steelhead stockings have been eliminated for all puget sound rivers except the Sky for the next 12 years virtually eliminating steelhead fishing on any of these rivers.
Not condoning it by any means...just saying...the river wasn't going to get planted anyway.
Post by: baker5150 on May 13, 2014, 03:49:17 PM
Sweet! No way I would ever turn those guys in! :tup:
Stupid NFS can stick it where the sun don't shine!
Sorry but there is no way this is a good thing. Think of the rivers and streams (or lakes per the article ) that now will not get planted. I'm no expert but I assume that the release of fish is a fairly controlled act when it comes to timing and conditions. What makes anyone think that these hatchery fish will even survive the release?
Crime and vandelism will never achieve anything positive.
I agree, there's more science involved than just opening the pen and letting them swim out. This is more than likely all for nothing.
Post by: h20hunter on May 13, 2014, 03:50:10 PM
Post by: MtnMuley on May 13, 2014, 03:51:14 PM
Post by: snowpack on May 13, 2014, 03:52:43 PM
Most I can think of release steelhead smolts late April to early May. They should survive the river part of the release fine. Who knows about the sound where they have about an 80% chance of being eaten since the herring are so depressed.Sweet! No way I would ever turn those guys in! :tup:
Stupid NFS can stick it where the sun don't shine!
Sorry but there is no way this is a good thing. Think of the rivers and streams (or lakes per the article ) that now will not get planted. I'm no expert but I assume that the release of fish is a fairly controlled act when it comes to timing and conditions. What makes anyone think that these hatchery fish will even survive the release?
Crime and vandelism will never achieve anything positive.
Post by: Bullkllr on May 13, 2014, 03:55:10 PM
Sweet! No way I would ever turn those guys in! :tup:
Stupid NFS can stick it where the sun don't shine!
Sorry but there is no way this is a good thing. Think of the rivers and streams that now will not get planted. I'm no expert but I assume that the release of fish is a fairly controlled act when it comes to timing and conditions. What makes anyone think that these hatchery fish will even survive the release?
This is likely within the window they would normally be released. Main reason streams open June 1 instead of earlier is most steelhead smolts are migrated out by then.
It may have been someone with some knowledge... :dunno:
As far as rivers and streams that will not get planted- that ship already sailed. The only stream in the Puget Sound basin that was going to be planted (per new "settlement") was the Sky. All other steelhead smolts at PS hatcheries were going to lakes on the Eastside. Looks like there may be some in the Sno/Tokul 2/3years from now after all.
Only thing I have to add is that if the perps were really organized they should have hit all the hatcheries at once for a simultaneous release.
Post by: pd on May 13, 2014, 04:14:29 PM
I edited my post regarding the comment about lakes. I still maintain that crime and vandelism is the wrong way to go about it.
H20 Hunter, I agree with you that crime and vandalism are usually neither appropriate nor effective. However, you surely are aware of the long history of civil disobedience in this country, starting with the Whiskey Rebellion and continuing through the Civil Rights movement. Sometimes these activities are eventually effective (MLK Jr.), and sometimes they result in hangings (John Brown's raid on the armory at Harper's Ferry comes to mind).
Which way will this episode develop? Care to venture a guess?
Post by: Mfowl on May 13, 2014, 04:21:04 PM
Post by: h20hunter on May 13, 2014, 04:53:28 PM
I edited my post regarding the comment about lakes. I still maintain that crime and vandelism is the wrong way to go about it.
H20 Hunter, I agree with you that crime and vandalism are usually neither appropriate nor effective. However, you surely are aware of the long history of civil disobedience in this country, starting with the Whiskey Rebellion and continuing through the Civil Rights movement. Sometimes these activities are eventually effective (MLK Jr.), and sometimes they result in hangings (John Brown's raid on the armory at Harper's Ferry comes to mind).
Which way will this episode develop? Care to venture a guess?
how it will develop? My guess is a waste of time. As mentioned the days of yore are gone and past.
Post by: KFhunter on May 13, 2014, 04:55:17 PM
Post by: Bullkllr on May 13, 2014, 04:58:13 PM
25,000 smolts is not going to give any of us great fishing in the future. But I tip my hat to the responsible party all the same! As far as crime and vandalism go...I think this act demonstrates a passion for a fishery that many of us loved and is now a thing of the past. If you think the good 'ol days of steelheading will return, IMO your in for disappointment.I don't think anyone here alluded to that. 25,000 is a drop in the bucket compared to what used to go into every system. Hopefully some %, however small, will survive to return. And hopefully a few will be caught. Any steelhead to fish for is better than no steelhead to fish for, even if it's a 1-time deal. Basically, it's more a slap in the face to our (mis)managers than anything.
Increased pressure on the few remaining nates is gonna hurt these rivers more than ever. As far as planting the smolts in a lake...lol...what a waste!
:yeah: I wonder if they even considered moving the plants to other rivers?
Post by: BOWHUNTER45 on May 13, 2014, 05:28:23 PM
Post by: BOWHUNTER45 on May 13, 2014, 05:33:52 PM
Where's BH45?Right here ! And this is why this state is the way it is ....30% see it the way I would and the other 70 % see it the way H20 sees it .... :chuckle: :chuckle: :chuckle: :chuckle: just saying H20 ..Things need extreme measures at this point ...just think how much we have lost in the last few years ..and it is continuing without anyone looking back ....Something needs to happen to get some attention .... :tup:
Post by: Bullkllr on May 13, 2014, 05:40:38 PM
In the voice of Charleton Heston...
"Director Anderson, let my steelhead GO!"
Post by: BOWHUNTER45 on May 13, 2014, 05:45:56 PM
It was Steelhead Moses::chuckle: :chuckle: That sums her up :tup:
In the voice of Charleton Heston...
"Director Anderson, let my steelhead GO!"
Post by: stevemiller on May 13, 2014, 05:46:41 PM
Post by: GEARHEAD on May 13, 2014, 06:19:56 PM
Post by: steeleywhopper on May 13, 2014, 06:35:20 PM
Post by: D-Rock425 on May 13, 2014, 06:43:37 PM
Post by: Goldeneye on May 13, 2014, 06:48:46 PM
http://www.heraldnet.com/article/20140511/OPINION03/140519957 (http://www.heraldnet.com/article/20140511/OPINION03/140519957)
Department of Fish and Wildlife wrong to give in to bullies
Salmon swim upstream. The state caved to a bully when it agreed to a deal over salmon, Kirk Pearson argues.
Sen. Kirk Pearson
By Sen. Kirk Pearson
Most of us have to deal with bullying at some point in our lives. The key is to recognize the type of bullying you face and make sure that you don't respond the way the bully wants. Most of all, you should never give in to intimidation or threats, lest you plan to hand your milk money over on a regular basis.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It's a lesson the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife apparently has yet to learn. The agency claims its mission includes providing sustainable fish and wildlife recreational and commercial opportunities, yet it recently slashed fishing opportunities by cutting a deal with Wild Fish Conservancy — a bully threatening the state with lawsuits.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On March 31 the conservancy sued the department, claiming the state's early-winter hatchery-steelhead program posed a threat to wild steelhead, salmon and bull-trout recovery efforts. DFW denied the accuracy of the claim, stating it has taken many steps based on current science to ensure its hatchery operations protect wild steelhead and other protected fish species.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In spite of that initial resistance, DFW decided it was easier to appease the bully and eliminate the threat of the lawsuit than it was to continue to fight the lawsuit while also facing federal permit delays. DFW agreed to drastically reduce the release of hatchery-raised young steelhead into Puget Sound rivers: instead of 900,000 it will be 180,000 (an 80 percent cut), and no early winter steelhead will be released into Puget Sound rivers other than the Skykomish in 2014.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The move comes at a high price. These juvenile steelhead represent about two-thirds of all hatchery steelhead produced by DFW hatcheries in the region, through a state investment of $1 million. It has also been reported that the harvest of these vital resources would generate $7 million to $10 million of economic activity, in addition to the important recreational and cultural benefits full utilization of these hatchery fish would provide Washingtonians.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Without these fish, our communities will see an instant economic effect, as fishermen will no longer be patronizing local businesses and millions of dollars in sales of licenses, gear, fuel and supplies will be lost.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
While I understand the need for continuing analysis and improvement of hatchery operations over time, abruptly abandoning the vast majority of the planned steelhead release in the face of this lawsuit is not the answer.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
By giving in to bullying, DFW has created an unequitable and unacceptable situation for sport fishermen, tribes and our state's economy as a whole.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
True, the federal court agreement will keep the bully at bay for the next 2 ½ years at most, preventing the Wild Fish Conservancy from suing DFW over its Puget Sound hatchery programs during that time. But like any bully, it is likely that the group will simply resume the pursuit of its agenda by threat and lawsuit once that window has closed. And what is to prevent others from seeing the success of this tactic and launching similar bullying strategies of their own?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Forcing taxpayers to pay tens of thousands of dollars in legal fees will only encourage extremist organizations, like the WFC, to continue to sue the state again and again, until they reach their ultimate goal — the elimination of all fish hatcheries.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
We can't have government by lawsuit and intimidation. Nor should we allow a relatively small special interest group to control public policy for the entire state.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
We've already seen a similar tactic used in a case involving the U.S. Forest Service fire lookout on Green Mountain in the Darrington area. In that case another one of these bullies sued the federal government to try forcing the removal of the lookout. They too might have been successful if the tragic Oso mudslide hadn't prompted swift federal action from President Barack Obama and others.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition to the future effect of the state backing down in this case, there are still several other questions about this deal that need to be answered:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What is the economic effect that will result from the 12-year agreement on the Skagit River system?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Beyond the Skagit, what other river systems are affected? What will be the economic effect resulting from the agreement on each of these systems?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Under this agreement the tribes, who are the co-managers of our fisheries, lose out on the economic and cultural benefits these fish bring. Were their concerns considered, and were they consulted, prior to this deal being reached?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What justification is there for the state to pay litigation expenses to the conservancy or any other private organization? Couldn't those funds be better used for education, serving our most vulnerable citizens or protecting the environment?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Statewide, how many fishing licenses will no longer be sold, given the effectual end of these fisheries?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
These questions point to one undeniable truth: DFW was wrong to roll over to the bully, when the department could have instead stood its ground, continued to work with the National Marine Fisheries Services on a long-term solution, and kept this vital resource for our community and the economy on track.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sen. Kirk Pearson, R-Monroe, represents the 39th Legislative District and is the Chair of the Washington State Senate Natural Resources & Parks Committee.
Post by: Mfowl on May 13, 2014, 06:57:08 PM
Any guesses?
Post by: bobcat on May 13, 2014, 07:15:04 PM
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: KFhunter on May 13, 2014, 07:49:04 PM
Post by: Hunterman on May 13, 2014, 07:59:47 PM
Hunterman(Tony)
Post by: metlhead on May 13, 2014, 08:30:52 PM
Post by: Knocker of rocks on May 13, 2014, 08:39:59 PM
Just a thought. What actions do you think will be taken by the state. Will they attempt to eradicate these fish before they outmigrate? Rotenone?
I don't think Rote will work, and if it did, too much collateral damage to other species.
Just my guess
Post by: singleshot12 on May 14, 2014, 12:23:11 PM
Just think folks,,the ability NOT to catch steelhead is what our fishing license are paying for :IBCOOL: Dang I wish they would increase the fees some more :IBCOOL:
Hunterman(Tony)
I'm trying to think optimistic and long term with this whole hatchery closure thing. We never should of had hatcheries in the first place. It may take a few years but the few remaining wild steelhead if left alone with the habitat restoration they are getting should come back. It may take a decade or two but wouldn't it be worth it to have real steelhead in historic numbers again some day? These hatchery fish are just that and their only destination should of been in a lake.
The 25,000 steelhead that were released will most likely not be open to be fished for anyways. So if disgruntled sportsmen did this it will make us look bad in the long run.
Post by: huntnphool on May 14, 2014, 01:01:40 PM
:chuckle: LMAOJust think folks,,the ability NOT to catch steelhead is what our fishing license are paying for :IBCOOL: Dang I wish they would increase the fees some more :IBCOOL:
Hunterman(Tony)
I'm trying to think optimistic and long term with this whole hatchery closure thing. We never should of had hatcheries in the first place. It may take a few years but the few remaining wild steelhead if left alone with the habitat restoration they are getting should come back.
Post by: singleshot12 on May 14, 2014, 01:06:49 PM
:chuckle: LMAOJust think folks,,the ability NOT to catch steelhead is what our fishing license are paying for :IBCOOL: Dang I wish they would increase the fees some more :IBCOOL:
Hunterman(Tony)
I'm trying to think optimistic and long term with this whole hatchery closure thing. We never should of had hatcheries in the first place. It may take a few years but the few remaining wild steelhead if left alone with the habitat restoration they are getting should come back.
Laugh your ass off?? :dunno: you don't think there are any wild fish left or that the habitat will never be restored? or the never should be hatcherys comment?
Post by: grundy53 on May 14, 2014, 01:22:43 PM
:chuckle: LMAOJust think folks,,the ability NOT to catch steelhead is what our fishing license are paying for :IBCOOL: Dang I wish they would increase the fees some more :IBCOOL:
Hunterman(Tony)
I'm trying to think optimistic and long term with this whole hatchery closure thing. We never should of had hatcheries in the first place. It may take a few years but the few remaining wild steelhead if left alone with the habitat restoration they are getting should come back.
Laugh your ass off?? :dunno: you don't think there are any wild fish left or that the habitat will never be restored? or the never should be hatcherys comment?
All the above.....
sent from my typewriter
Post by: LongTatLaw on May 14, 2014, 01:25:14 PM
I wonder what charges would be filed if someone were arrested for this?
Any guesses?
Based on my experience with the WDFG...the charges would probably be RAPE, attamepted Murder, and felony kid napping... but Im a little jaded.
I cannot believe the state caved to this weak A :yike:ss crap.
If these criminals really wanted to save wildlife in WA State they woulda left the smolt and released Anderson into a PS River
but i digress
crime = bad thing
shame on you guys
Post by: singleshot12 on May 14, 2014, 01:28:43 PM
I guess some of you don't know or remember what it is like to catch and eat a wild steelhead. Worlds apart from any hatchery one :twocents:
:chuckle: LMAOJust think folks,,the ability NOT to catch steelhead is what our fishing license are paying for :IBCOOL: Dang I wish they would increase the fees some more :IBCOOL:
Hunterman(Tony)
I'm trying to think optimistic and long term with this whole hatchery closure thing. We never should of had hatcheries in the first place. It may take a few years but the few remaining wild steelhead if left alone with the habitat restoration they are getting should come back.
Laugh your ass off?? :dunno: you don't think there are any wild fish left or that the habitat will never be restored? or the never should be hatcherys comment?
All the above.....
sent from my typewriter
Post by: snowpack on May 14, 2014, 01:29:09 PM
Can you think of any examples of places where hatchery fish have been removed coupled with habitat restoration has yielded any real comeback? I can only think of a few smaller streams that added a few fish to them but to the overall system any change couldn't be detected.:chuckle: LMAOJust think folks,,the ability NOT to catch steelhead is what our fishing license are paying for :IBCOOL: Dang I wish they would increase the fees some more :IBCOOL:
Hunterman(Tony)
I'm trying to think optimistic and long term with this whole hatchery closure thing. We never should of had hatcheries in the first place. It may take a few years but the few remaining wild steelhead if left alone with the habitat restoration they are getting should come back.
Laugh your ass off?? :dunno: you don't think there are any wild fish left or that the habitat will never be restored? or the never should be hatcherys comment?
Post by: wafisherman on May 14, 2014, 01:37:53 PM
First steelhead I ever landed about 15 yrs ago on the snoqualmie:
(https://hunting-washington.com/smf/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.washingtonflyfishing.com%2Fgallery%2Fdata%2F500%2Fmedium%2F411nativesteel.jpg&hash=abbec51b4acdb246a4005c1269c570524c7702bd)
Several years later, one of my biggest, a big buck in the high teens up by the falls:
(https://hunting-washington.com/smf/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.washingtonflyfishing.com%2Fgallery%2Fdata%2F505%2Fmedium%2F411NativeSteel1d.jpg&hash=75726ff30fb3a820ad08693ea38cd8e20337a65c)
For now on, will be referred to as the good ole days. Just don't see it ever opening again. If wild fish rebound, they will want to keep them protected...
Post by: singleshot12 on May 14, 2014, 01:42:52 PM
Can you think of any examples of places where hatchery fish have been removed coupled with habitat restoration has yielded any real comeback? I can only think of a few smaller streams that added a few fish to them but to the overall system any change couldn't be detected.:chuckle: LMAOJust think folks,,the ability NOT to catch steelhead is what our fishing license are paying for :IBCOOL: Dang I wish they would increase the fees some more :IBCOOL:
Hunterman(Tony)
I'm trying to think optimistic and long term with this whole hatchery closure thing. We never should of had hatcheries in the first place. It may take a few years but the few remaining wild steelhead if left alone with the habitat restoration they are getting should come back.
Laugh your ass off?? :dunno: you don't think there are any wild fish left or that the habitat will never be restored? or the never should be hatcherys comment?
I am only really familiar with the Skagit and Stilly. Resoration efforts may take years before seeing any significant signs. I know the Skagit has a couple of tributaries that has had increased native returns due to restoration. The Stilly was on the right road also,but now with the Oso mud slide any restoration efforts will be unnoticeable for a long time I'm sure.
Post by: singleshot12 on May 14, 2014, 01:48:43 PM
I've caught several nice wild fish on the Snoqualmie over the years. Some wild tolt river fish, and a few near the falls.
First steelhead I ever landed about 15 yrs ago on the snoqualmie:
(https://hunting-washington.com/smf/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.washingtonflyfishing.com%2Fgallery%2Fdata%2F500%2Fmedium%2F411nativesteel.jpg&hash=abbec51b4acdb246a4005c1269c570524c7702bd)
Several years later, one of my biggest, a big buck in the high teens up by the falls:
(https://hunting-washington.com/smf/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.washingtonflyfishing.com%2Fgallery%2Fdata%2F505%2Fmedium%2F411NativeSteel1d.jpg&hash=75726ff30fb3a820ad08693ea38cd8e20337a65c)
For now on, will be referred to as the good ole days. Just don't see it ever opening again. If wild fish rebound, they will want to keep them protected...
Nice fish, but you gotta think more positive wafisherman,IMO a steelhead ain't a steelhead unless it's wild.
Post by: huntnphool on May 14, 2014, 01:53:43 PM
You clearly made a joke, wasn't I supposed to laugh? :dunno::chuckle: LMAOJust think folks,,the ability NOT to catch steelhead is what our fishing license are paying for :IBCOOL: Dang I wish they would increase the fees some more :IBCOOL:
Hunterman(Tony)
I'm trying to think optimistic and long term with this whole hatchery closure thing. We never should of had hatcheries in the first place. It may take a few years but the few remaining wild steelhead if left alone with the habitat restoration they are getting should come back.
Laugh your ass off?? :dunno: you don't think there are any wild fish left or that the habitat will never be restored? or the never should be hatcherys comment?
Post by: singleshot12 on May 14, 2014, 02:08:03 PM
You clearly made a joke, wasn't I supposed to laugh? :dunno::chuckle: LMAOJust think folks,,the ability NOT to catch steelhead is what our fishing license are paying for :IBCOOL: Dang I wish they would increase the fees some more :IBCOOL:
Hunterman(Tony)
I'm trying to think optimistic and long term with this whole hatchery closure thing. We never should of had hatcheries in the first place. It may take a few years but the few remaining wild steelhead if left alone with the habitat restoration they are getting should come back.
Laugh your ass off?? :dunno: you don't think there are any wild fish left or that the habitat will never be restored? or the never should be hatcherys comment?
Not a joke! Like I said before trying to be optimistic, it's a done deal now! What good is it to piss and moan now? I think it is highly possible now if the money and time that was once spent on hatcheries is now spent on restoring the wild runs to fishable levels again.
I myself and a lot of others stopped fishing anyways since the generic hatchery trout became the only thing available.
Post by: huntnphool on May 14, 2014, 02:11:28 PM
You clearly made a joke, wasn't I supposed to laugh? :dunno::chuckle: LMAOJust think folks,,the ability NOT to catch steelhead is what our fishing license are paying for :IBCOOL: Dang I wish they would increase the fees some more :IBCOOL:
Hunterman(Tony)
I'm trying to think optimistic and long term with this whole hatchery closure thing. We never should of had hatcheries in the first place. It may take a few years but the few remaining wild steelhead if left alone with the habitat restoration they are getting should come back.
Laugh your ass off?? :dunno: you don't think there are any wild fish left or that the habitat will never be restored? or the never should be hatcherys comment?
Not a joke!
:chuckle: That's even funnier!
Post by: rosscrazyelk on May 14, 2014, 02:16:51 PM
Post by: singleshot12 on May 14, 2014, 02:31:54 PM
You clearly made a joke, wasn't I supposed to laugh? :dunno::chuckle: LMAOJust think folks,,the ability NOT to catch steelhead is what our fishing license are paying for :IBCOOL: Dang I wish they would increase the fees some more :IBCOOL:
Hunterman(Tony)
I'm trying to think optimistic and long term with this whole hatchery closure thing. We never should of had hatcheries in the first place. It may take a few years but the few remaining wild steelhead if left alone with the habitat restoration they are getting should come back.
Laugh your ass off?? :dunno: you don't think there are any wild fish left or that the habitat will never be restored? or the never should be hatcherys comment?
Not a joke!
:chuckle: That's even funnier!
ok whatever laffy-pants :chuckle: and I'm sure you will find plenty more folks here to join in with your histaria :rolleyes:
You clearly have no hope for the fishing future of Washington State and that's ok
Post by: huntnphool on May 14, 2014, 02:46:42 PM
You clearly made a joke, wasn't I supposed to laugh? :dunno::chuckle: LMAOJust think folks,,the ability NOT to catch steelhead is what our fishing license are paying for :IBCOOL: Dang I wish they would increase the fees some more :IBCOOL:
Hunterman(Tony)
I'm trying to think optimistic and long term with this whole hatchery closure thing. We never should of had hatcheries in the first place. It may take a few years but the few remaining wild steelhead if left alone with the habitat restoration they are getting should come back.
Laugh your ass off?? :dunno: you don't think there are any wild fish left or that the habitat will never be restored? or the never should be hatcherys comment?
Not a joke!
:chuckle: That's even funnier!
ok whatever laffy-pants :chuckle: and I'm sure you will find plenty more folks here to join in with your histaria :rolleyes:
You clearly have no hope for the fishing future of Washington State and that's ok
For you to suggest that the cure all for rivers full of wild fish is the elimination of hatcheries/hatchery stock is simply laughable. (https://hunting-washington.com/smf/MGalleryItem.php?id=11990)
The complete elimination of green house gasses by the US would result in a reversal of global warming/climate change too right? :chuckle:
Post by: jackmaster on May 14, 2014, 02:53:44 PM
Post by: snowpack on May 14, 2014, 02:59:50 PM
The Puget Sound area grows in population by a little over 50,000 people a year. About half for the entire state. The entire state is about a million per decade. As it is now, about one in every thousand people in the world is living in Washington. I'm not really seeing Puget Sound as pulling off a miraculous recovery.
ok whatever laffy-pants :chuckle: and I'm sure you will find plenty more folks here to join in with your histaria :rolleyes:
You clearly have no hope for the fishing future of Washington State and that's ok
Post by: whacker1 on May 14, 2014, 04:11:59 PM
The Puget Sound area grows in population by a little over 50,000 people a year. About half for the entire state. The entire state is about a million per decade. As it is now, about one in every thousand people in the world is living in Washington. I'm not really seeing Puget Sound as pulling off a miraculous recovery.
ok whatever laffy-pants :chuckle: and I'm sure you will find plenty more folks here to join in with your histaria :rolleyes:
You clearly have no hope for the fishing future of Washington State and that's ok
Well said.
Post by: singleshot12 on May 14, 2014, 04:34:44 PM
I have never caught a steelhead guess I never will now
maybe your kids will
Hatchery fish were were never meant to be long term to begin with
Post by: singleshot12 on May 14, 2014, 04:40:58 PM
The Puget Sound area grows in population by a little over 50,000 people a year. About half for the entire state. The entire state is about a million per decade. As it is now, about one in every thousand people in the world is living in Washington. I'm not really seeing Puget Sound as pulling off a miraculous recovery.
50,000 more peops a year in the Puget Sound does sound unreal. Are you saying the rapid growing populace will create too much pollution for any sort of recovery to happen?
Post by: bigtex on May 14, 2014, 04:42:32 PM
Post by: singleshot12 on May 14, 2014, 04:48:51 PM
Post by: whacker1 on May 14, 2014, 04:52:44 PM
The Puget Sound area grows in population by a little over 50,000 people a year. About half for the entire state. The entire state is about a million per decade. As it is now, about one in every thousand people in the world is living in Washington. I'm not really seeing Puget Sound as pulling off a miraculous recovery.
50,000 more peops a year in the Puget Sound does sound unreal. Are you saying the rapid growing populace will create too much pollution for any sort of recovery to happen?
Not quite 50k or more than 50k depending on the counties included.
Snohomish, pierce, king counties make up $395k people between the 2000 and 2010 census
http://www.ofm.wa.gov/pop/census2010/pl/maps/map01.asp (http://www.ofm.wa.gov/pop/census2010/pl/maps/map01.asp)
I wouldn't attribute to just pollution, but habitat infringement, access, resources, continued liberalization of the Puget sound driven by urban core population among others. I think it will be highly unlikely to ever see steelhead fishing anytime a river is discontinued.
We are arguing amongst ourselves over season lengths for Archery Elk, Modern, muzzleloader every year. Mule deer seasons being too short. seasons at the wrong time. litigation ending access. Opportunity is not increasing. Please look at the bigger picture. What does puget sound look like with regards to access to water alone when you add 1,000,000 more people to the puget sound over the next 2 decades as you indicated it would take to rebound?
Post by: singleshot12 on May 14, 2014, 04:54:34 PM
I bet it was a worker at the hatchery that turned them loose :tup: :tup: congrats to whoever did it....
Whoever did.What good would it do? We won't be able to fish for them anyways... atleast if they were released into lakes some might make it to descent catchable size hold-overs
Post by: singleshot12 on May 14, 2014, 04:58:02 PM
The Puget Sound area grows in population by a little over 50,000 people a year. About half for the entire state. The entire state is about a million per decade. As it is now, about one in every thousand people in the world is living in Washington. I'm not really seeing Puget Sound as pulling off a miraculous recovery.
50,000 more peops a year in the Puget Sound does sound unreal. Are you saying the rapid growing populace will create too much pollution for any sort of recovery to happen?
Not quite 50k or more than 50k depending on the counties included.
Snohomish, pierce, king counties make up $395k people between the 2000 and 2010 census
http://www.ofm.wa.gov/pop/census2010/pl/maps/map01.asp (http://www.ofm.wa.gov/pop/census2010/pl/maps/map01.asp)
I wouldn't attribute to just pollution, but habitat infringement, access, resources, continued liberalization of the Puget sound driven by urban core population among others. I think it will be highly unlikely to ever see steelhead fishing anytime a river is discontinued.
We are arguing amongst ourselves over season lengths for Archery Elk, Modern, muzzleloader every year. Mule deer seasons being too short. seasons at the wrong time. litigation ending access. Opportunity is not increasing. Please look at the bigger picture. What does puget sound look like with regards to access to water alone when you add 1,000,000 more people to the puget sound over the next 2 decades as you indicated it would take to rebound?
Yeah you're right maybe I'm just fooling myself it's over :bash:
Post by: GEARHEAD on May 14, 2014, 04:58:07 PM
Post by: snowpack on May 14, 2014, 05:07:20 PM
Yeah, I added in the area that is affected by the hatchery lawsuit and the Puget Sound steelhead--so it goes from the Dungeness River all the way to Nooksack.The Puget Sound area grows in population by a little over 50,000 people a year. About half for the entire state. The entire state is about a million per decade. As it is now, about one in every thousand people in the world is living in Washington. I'm not really seeing Puget Sound as pulling off a miraculous recovery.
50,000 more peops a year in the Puget Sound does sound unreal. Are you saying the rapid growing populace will create too much pollution for any sort of recovery to happen?
Not quite 50k or more than 50k depending on the counties included.
Snohomish, pierce, king counties make up $395k people between the 2000 and 2010 census
http://www.ofm.wa.gov/pop/census2010/pl/maps/map01.asp (http://www.ofm.wa.gov/pop/census2010/pl/maps/map01.asp)
I wouldn't attribute to just pollution, but habitat infringement, access, resources, continued liberalization of the Puget sound driven by urban core population among others. I think it will be highly unlikely to ever see steelhead fishing anytime a river is discontinued.
We are arguing amongst ourselves over season lengths for Archery Elk, Modern, muzzleloader every year. Mule deer seasons being too short. seasons at the wrong time. litigation ending access. Opportunity is not increasing. Please look at the bigger picture. What does puget sound look like with regards to access to water alone when you add 1,000,000 more people to the puget sound over the next 2 decades as you indicated it would take to rebound?
I agree not just pollution. But more of everything--more people playing in rivers and creeks, more people wanting to eat local-'wild' fish with steelies being bycatch, more storm drainage, more recreational fisherman wanting herring for bait, etc.
Post by: snowpack on May 14, 2014, 05:14:15 PM
I wonder how many fish there would be if there were no nets....Well, if most of what I've read is accurate....
No tribal nets on the local rivers, we might have double.
No commercial nets in Alaska and BC, we might get 18 times the number.
No commercial nets in Alaska and BC and no tribal nets on local rivers, might have 19 times the number.
Post by: BOWHUNTER45 on May 14, 2014, 05:26:26 PM
LMAO with a head shake...IMO if I wanted to catch hatchery trout I'd rather do that in a stocked lake.
I guess some of you don't know or remember what it is like to catch and eat a wild steelhead. Worlds apart from any hatchery one :twocents:O Boy ...I remember what a wild steelhead tastes like ...Nothing compares to it ...but the only ones that will be tasting it is out native brothers ..this whole Native thing is a bunch of BS ..I do not think we were made by our creator for one of us to have more rights than the other ...Whoever is making this crap up needs to be sent North Korea .... :violent1::chuckle: LMAOJust think folks,,the ability NOT to catch steelhead is what our fishing license are paying for :IBCOOL: Dang I wish they would increase the fees some more :IBCOOL:
Hunterman(Tony)
I'm trying to think optimistic and long term with this whole hatchery closure thing. We never should of had hatcheries in the first place. It may take a few years but the few remaining wild steelhead if left alone with the habitat restoration they are getting should come back.
Laugh your ass off?? :dunno: you don't think there are any wild fish left or that the habitat will never be restored? or the never should be hatcherys comment?
All the above.....
sent from my typewriter
Post by: BOWHUNTER45 on May 14, 2014, 05:33:07 PM
Post by: RG on May 14, 2014, 06:11:16 PM
Post by: huntnphool on May 14, 2014, 09:06:41 PM
That's just the thing! The nets should of been gone long before this. Netting will have to go before anything can move forward.Ah, so now you admit that the WDFW/Wild Fish Conservancy agreement is useless, and the hatchery stocks are not the problem :chuckle:
Post by: stevemiller on May 14, 2014, 09:40:45 PM
That's just the thing! The nets should of been gone long before this. Netting will have to go before anything can move forward.This is the smartest thing you have posted this entire thread,But they havnt,wont,Therefore hatchery is all that can be done.
Post by: huntnphool on May 14, 2014, 09:44:02 PM
Exactly, which makes the hatchery closure nothing more than a liberal "feel good" about doing something/anything move!That's just the thing! The nets should of been gone long before this. Netting will have to go before anything can move forward.This is the smartest thing you have posted this entire thread,But they havnt,wont,Therefore hatchery is all that can be done.
Post by: stevemiller on May 14, 2014, 10:13:01 PM
Post by: Antlershed on May 14, 2014, 10:15:05 PM
I wonder how many fish there would be if there were no nets....The netters are just another group that DFW caters to...
Post by: GEARHEAD on May 14, 2014, 11:23:25 PM
Post by: huntnphool on May 14, 2014, 11:40:30 PM
a kinda different view being expressed on a certain washington fly fishing web site, they seem to think we are sore loosers.They are losers as well, they just don't see it yet. In a few years, WDFW will close fishing in all Puget Sound streams, even for fly fisherman, based on low fish numbers, which is a no brainer given there will be no hatchery production.
The "wild" fish numbers will be no better than they are now, another no brainer given the real issue is not being addressed.
And in the end the only winners in this whole BS, liberal, geo political fiasco will be the crooked a$$ politicians and lawyers. :twocents:
Post by: Bullkllr on May 15, 2014, 06:48:49 AM
a kinda different view being expressed on a certain washington fly fishing web site, they seem to think we are sore loosers.They are losers as well, they just don't see it yet. In a few years, WDFW will close fishing in all Puget Sound streams, even for fly fisherman, based on low fish numbers, which is a no brainer given there will be no hatchery production.
The "wild" fish numbers will be no better than they are now, another no brainer given the real issue is not being addressed.
And in the end the only winners in this whole BS, liberal, geo political fiasco will be the crooked a$$ politicians and lawyers. :twocents:
Very nice synopsis of the realities of this situation :tup:
Not saying I'm not a wild fish advocate (I am!), or that there haven't been some valid points made here regarding wild fish (Singleshot12).
But reality is, as they say, reality.
Post by: Antlershed on May 15, 2014, 09:36:13 AM
a kinda different view being expressed on a certain washington fly fishing web site, they seem to think we are sore loosers.Would you expect anything more out of a fly fishing website?
Post by: wafisherman on May 15, 2014, 10:48:09 AM
a kinda different view being expressed on a certain washington fly fishing web site, they seem to think we are sore loosers.Would you expect anything more out of a fly fishing website?
I'm a fly fisherman and know a lot of guys on that site. Most of them enjoy bonking a hatchery brat as much as anyone. Yes, there are some hard core wild fish Nazis and elitists, but you'll find those types here as well, just maybe on different topics...
Post by: teal101 on May 15, 2014, 11:07:23 AM
a kinda different view being expressed on a certain washington fly fishing web site, they seem to think we are sore loosers.Would you expect anything more out of a fly fishing website?
I'm a fly fisherman and know a lot of guys on that site. Most of them enjoy honking a hatchery brat as much as anyone. Yes, there are some hard core wild fish Nazis and elitists, but you'll find those types here as well, just maybe on different topics...
Yup, me included.
Theres a lot that needs to be done to return wild Steelhead, reducing/removing hatchery fish is step one. Numerous studies support this. Increased fish passage past dams, pollution reduction, stopping the indian netting, reducing logging in wild fish runs, eliminating dredge and suction mining in wild steelhead rivers, and attempted control of the commercial overfishing in the ocean are all pieces to the puzzle.
Post by: Antlershed on May 15, 2014, 01:07:06 PM
Post by: teal101 on May 15, 2014, 01:20:49 PM
I'd rather have some hatchery fish to bonk than no fish at all which is where we will end up if we shut down all the hatcheries. The wild fish nazis need to come back to reality.
The sport fishers need to stop being so greedy. Yes the rivers will be shut down. Yes it may be decades before they open. No you will not be able to bonk Steelhead for awhile. The end result will be an increase in true wild strains repopulating the rivers for sport fishing.
You have to understand that decades of mismanagement, over consumption, and habitat degradation have got us to this point. It is going to take decades of recovery to reverse the adverse effects. You cannot fix this overnight. Patience will need to be exercised by all parties involved.
You are aware of the issues with introducing non-native genetic species into river systems? Hatchery fish (with a few exceptions) are just that. They are non native. Some hatcheries are using wild genetic stock from the river to repopulate which should be the only active hatchery practice used for Salmonids in my eyes.
Post by: singleshot12 on May 15, 2014, 01:21:07 PM
Ah, so now you admit that the WDFW/Wild Fish Conservancy agreement is useless, and the hatchery stocks are not the problem :chuckle:You are right huntnphool. The WFC people are just a bunch of Californian elitist do-gooders who really don't have a clue.
So many issues at stake with what lead up to this day. But the bottom line is it's over and I do admit that now.
Post by: singleshot12 on May 15, 2014, 01:27:17 PM
I'd rather have some hatchery fish to bonk than no fish at all which is where we will end up if we shut down all the hatcheries. The wild fish nazis need to come back to reality.
The sport fishers need to stop being so greedy. Yes the rivers will be shut down. Yes it may be decades before they open. No you will not be able to bonk Steelhead for awhile. The end result will be an increase in true wild strains repopulating the rivers for sport fishing.
You have to understand that decades of mismanagement, over consumption, and habitat degradation have got us to this point. It is going to take decades of recovery to reverse the adverse effects. You cannot fix this overnight. Patience will need to be exercised by all parties involved.
You are aware of the issues with introducing non-native genetic species into river systems? Hatchery fish (with a few exceptions) are just that. They are non native. Some hatcheries are using wild genetic stock from the river to repopulate which should be the only active hatchery practice used for Salmonids in my eyes.
Well said! and agree we never should of had hatchery steelhead to begin with.
Post by: magnanimous_j on May 15, 2014, 01:57:11 PM
Post by: singleshot12 on May 15, 2014, 02:03:15 PM
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 :rolleyes: But then again not sure how that is really possible since they both arrive in the streams at differant times :dunno: Good question
Post by: TheHunt on May 15, 2014, 02:10:29 PM
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.
Post by: BigGoonTuna on May 15, 2014, 02:13:20 PM
Can someone explain to me why hatchery steelhead are detrimental to wild? I would think they would take pressure off the native stock.because they're a convenient boogeyman.
the same problems that affect wild fish, affect hatchery fish. while hatchery fish do impact wild fish to some small degree(everything has an impact, after all), they're far from the elephant in the room. however, they are expensive, and it's easier for the general public to swallow hatchery cuts as a solution rather than address the big issues, such as habitat degradation and whatever the hell is going on in the ocean and puget sound.
i've already accepted that steelhead fishing is pretty much done on the west side of the state, the closure of the puget sound rivers has already been putting intense pressure on the now fragile populations of the coastal rivers and it's only a matter of time before those get shut down too. the competition for the scraps we have left has sucked most of my enjoyment out of the hobby these days, i don't like like fighting over spots with the black hoody/flat brimmed ball cap crowd and the hordes of seattle guides in places i used to find some solitude.
Post by: singleshot12 on May 15, 2014, 02:15:09 PM
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.
That'll be next
Post by: singleshot12 on May 15, 2014, 02:17:52 PM
Can someone explain to me why hatchery steelhead are detrimental to wild? I would think they would take pressure off the native stock.because they're a convenient boogeyman.
the same problems that affect wild fish, affect hatchery fish. while hatchery fish do impact wild fish to some small degree(everything has an impact, after all), they're far from the elephant in the room. however, they are expensive, and it's easier for the general public to swallow hatchery cuts as a solution rather than address the big issues, such as habitat degradation and whatever the hell is going on in the ocean and puget sound.
i've already accepted that steelhead fishing is pretty much done on the west side of the state, the closure of the puget sound rivers has already been putting intense pressure on the now fragile populations of the coastal rivers and it's only a matter of time before those get shut down too. the competition for the scraps we have left has sucked most of my enjoyment out of the hobby these days, i don't like like fighting over spots with the black hoody/flat brimmed ball cap crowd and the hordes of seattle guides in places i used to find some solitude.
You nailed it!
Post by: snowpack on May 15, 2014, 02:58:22 PM
Can someone explain to me why hatchery steelhead are detrimental to wild? I would think they would take pressure off the native stock.They are probably the easiest of all the factors to target, even if they are a very minor factor. We hear about how they breed bad genes into wild stocks....but also how they are so unfit as to not successfully breed outside of a hatchery box. Which is it? Whatever the argument calls for.
They can add or divert pressure to the wild fish. By attracting any fishing, they would inadvertently pressure wild fish that are in the river at the same time. But having hatchery fish also gives the predators something else to eat and allows the wild to slip by (since supposedly hatchery fish aren't smart enough to evade).
Post by: teal101 on May 15, 2014, 03:05:59 PM
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.
Post by: teal101 on May 15, 2014, 03:08:16 PM
Can someone explain to me why hatchery steelhead are detrimental to wild? I would think they would take pressure off the native stock.because they're a convenient boogeyman.
the same problems that affect wild fish, affect hatchery fish. while hatchery fish do impact wild fish to some small degree(everything has an impact, after all), they're far from the elephant in the room. however, they are expensive, and it's easier for the general public to swallow hatchery cuts as a solution rather than address the big issues, such as habitat degradation and whatever the hell is going on in the ocean and puget sound.
i've already accepted that steelhead fishing is pretty much done on the west side of the state, the closure of the puget sound rivers has already been putting intense pressure on the now fragile populations of the coastal rivers and it's only a matter of time before those get shut down too. the competition for the scraps we have left has sucked most of my enjoyment out of the hobby these days, i don't like like fighting over spots with the black hoody/flat brimmed ball cap crowd and the hordes of seattle guides in places i used to find some solitude.
You nailed the biggest issue. Dams, logging, mining, pollution, and urban expansion have all affected the Salmonids the most. Hatcheries are one step, not the biggest, but they are a step.
Post by: teal101 on May 15, 2014, 03:12:58 PM
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.
They need to implement the program they have on the Sol Duc if they want to keep the rivers open. It is working well and is using native stock.
There should be no net pens anywhere on the Columbia, period.
Post by: teal101 on May 15, 2014, 03:14:42 PM
Can someone explain to me why hatchery steelhead are detrimental to wild? I would think they would take pressure off the native stock.They are probably the easiest of all the factors to target, even if they are a very minor factor. We hear about how they breed bad genes into wild stocks....but also how they are so unfit as to not successfully breed outside of a hatchery box. Which is it? Whatever the argument calls for.
They can add or divert pressure to the wild fish. By attracting any fishing, they would inadvertently pressure wild fish that are in the river at the same time. But having hatchery fish also gives the predators something else to eat and allows the wild to slip by (since supposedly hatchery fish aren't smart enough to evade).
The problem is some do breed and introduce poor genes into the native stock. Yes they do have low reproduction numbers, but that isnt to say they dont spawn at all.
Post by: snowpack on May 15, 2014, 03:17:09 PM
That program has been shut down to turn the Sol Duc into a gene bank. It is being re-established on the Bogachiel. It did work well.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.
They need to implement the program they have on the Sol Duc if they want to keep the rivers open. It is working well and is using native stock.
There should be no net pens anywhere on the Columbia, period.
Post by: teal101 on May 15, 2014, 03:51:07 PM
That program has been shut down to turn the Sol Duc into a gene bank. It is being re-established on the Bogachiel. It did work well.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.
They need to implement the program they have on the Sol Duc if they want to keep the rivers open. It is working well and is using native stock.
There should be no net pens anywhere on the Columbia, period.
It worked well enough to shut it down :tup:
They honestly need to just leave it alone now and implement it on all currently populated Steelhead rivers to kickstart wild recovery. It's the only "hatchery" program I support.
The removal of the Elwha dam was another big step. I still cannot fathom why they want to Dam the Sky though... I've also heard through the grapevine there is a serious consideration being put forth to finally implement fish ladders over Chief Joe and Grand Coulee.
Post by: Bullkllr on May 15, 2014, 04:15:30 PM
I've defended wild fish for years; debated it on this site many times. While I'm usually pro-wild, I cannot stomach this concession the DFW has made for a variety of reasons.
I'd rather have some hatchery fish to bonk than no fish at all which is where we will end up if we shut down all the hatcheries. The wild fish nazis need to come back to reality.Not only no fish for bonking, try no fish to fish for, period, from Olympia to Canada through the Strait. This will have far reaching impacts that are not good for fishermen, or fish for that matter.
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.
The fact that the DFW is not trying something else, and that they see this unilateral 'machete' approach as acceptable speaks volumes for who is really running the show and how generally useless management has become. Biggest effort made yet to have steelhead in Puget Sound Rivers: close a few of them down...when that doesn't work, close them all down.
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.And why are non-native hatchery stock salmon still being dumped into these same basins by the millions?
Oh, that's right... there's a commercial lobby involved...
The sport fishers need to stop being so greedy. Yes the rivers will be shut down. Yes it may be decades before they open. No you will not be able to bonk Steelhead for awhile. The end result will be an increase in true wild strains repopulating the rivers for sport fishing.I'm not sure I'd call it exactly "greedy". I see fishermen clinging to shards of nostalgia; and by this broad stroke we are really talking about changing a way of life for some fishermen (if that hasn't already happened). No hatchery fish will mean no fishing. I see you are from the Wenatchee area. Years-long closures and cutting hatchery plants worked on the Wenatchee river at least. Puget Sound streams are a whole different scenario. Wild fish have already been off-limits for years. Some PS basin streams have been closed for years (Nisqually). Wild returns have not increased much, if at all.
You have to understand that decades of mismanagement, over consumption, and habitat degradation have got us to this point. It is going to take decades of recovery to reverse the adverse effects. You cannot fix this overnight. Patience will need to be exercised by all parties involved.All true; and patience is normally a good thing...but the amount required here is indefinable and may be infinite.
I am really afraid that once sport fishers are removed from the equation, about 90% of the concern for steelhead (hatch & wild both) falls by the wayside. When the fish only exist as a story from past generations, where will the impetus for preserving/fixing habitat, etc. come from? DFW- yeah...sure.
You are aware of the issues with introducing non-native genetic species into river systems? Hatchery fish (with a few exceptions) are just that. They are non native. Some hatcheries are using wild genetic stock from the river to repopulate which should be the only active hatchery practice used for Salmonids in my eyes.Again, true. But with the past, domino effects we have all lived through, who's to say what effects are having the most impact now- and into the future? What areas will be next for closures? (Get ready SW WA and Oly Pen)
I don't think the DFW knows at all for sure. They just picked the cheapest and easiest "answer". Is there any broodstock plan or even a feasibility study for one on any PS streams? If so, no one seems aware of it. Again, cheapest, easiest, attack the weakest link management at its best.
Yes, they do. Different timing was not always the case. Do a google search. But the issue here is bigger than that.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 :rolleyes: But then again not sure how that is really possible since they both arrive in the streams at differant times :dunno: Good question
Can someone explain to me why hatchery steelhead are detrimental to wild? I would think they would take pressure off the native stock.because they're a convenient boogeyman.
the same problems that affect wild fish, affect hatchery fish. while hatchery fish do impact wild fish to some small degree(everything has an impact, after all), they're far from the elephant in the room. however, they are expensive, and it's easier for the general public to swallow hatchery cuts as a solution rather than address the big issues, such as habitat degradation and whatever the hell is going on in the ocean and puget sound.
i've already accepted that steelhead fishing is pretty much done on the west side of the state, the closure of the puget sound rivers has already been putting intense pressure on the now fragile populations of the coastal rivers and it's only a matter of time before those get shut down too. the competition for the scraps we have left has sucked most of my enjoyment out of the hobby these days, i don't like like fighting over spots with the black hoody/flat brimmed ball cap crowd and the hordes of seattle guides in places i used to find some solitude.
Sad in so many ways. Saddest way of all: he's spot on.
Post by: huntnphool on May 15, 2014, 04:39:21 PM
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.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.
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" :chuckle:
Post by: teal101 on May 15, 2014, 04:48:42 PM
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.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.
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" :chuckle:
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.
Post by: snowpack on May 15, 2014, 04:57:19 PM
You should not shut down all Puget Sound rivers at one time to make they native fish rivers. THAT IS BS in my mind.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.
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.
Post by: huntnphool on May 15, 2014, 05:01:25 PM
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?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.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.
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" :chuckle:
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.
Seems like these cross spawned fish are considered "native" as long as it suits the elitists agenda, how convenient! ;)
Post by: haugenna on May 15, 2014, 05:41:06 PM
Post by: teal101 on May 15, 2014, 05:41:39 PM
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?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.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.
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" :chuckle:
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.
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 :chuckle:
Post by: ICEMAN on May 15, 2014, 06:58:08 PM
So how are all these "wild" steelhead getting past all the indian nets to spawn? :chuckle:
Post by: RG on May 15, 2014, 08:02:50 PM
Post by: Bullkllr on May 15, 2014, 08:30:14 PM
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? :chuckle:
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:
Quote
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.
Post by: Bullkllr on May 15, 2014, 08:34:28 PM
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.
Post by: teal101 on May 15, 2014, 08:51:29 PM
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.
Post by: huntnphool on May 15, 2014, 09:36:40 PM
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?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.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.
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" :chuckle:
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.
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 :chuckle:
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.
Post by: Bullkllr on May 15, 2014, 09:43:21 PM
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?
Post by: RG on May 15, 2014, 10:11:50 PM
Post by: Bullkllr on May 15, 2014, 10:20:19 PM
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 :tup: As mentioned before- salmon have the support of commercials and their lobby $$- steelhead, not so much.
Post by: huntnphool on May 15, 2014, 10:41:28 PM
Apparently OPGA forgot to grease their political connections I guess. They actually wanted to let people catch a few fish too. Once again it comes back to its not about what's good for the sportsmen and women it's only about the special interest politics and baçk room deals. Nobody is allowed to participate if they can't be censored and controlled. It's just too bad they have to ruin a superb fishery that was enjoyed by hundreds if not thousands of people just at the whim of a small group of selfish mislead people. If hatcheries are so terrible tell me about puget sound hatchery salmon then. Hmm they mußt be different or exempt or worth more money than steelhead I guess.
Exactly :tup: As mentioned before- salmon have the support of commercials and their lobby $$- steelhead, not so much.
The salmon hatchery gene is different than the steelhead hatchery gene though, its not as inferior.
Post by: teal101 on May 15, 2014, 11:14:14 PM
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.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?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.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.
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" :chuckle:
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.
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 :chuckle:
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.
Its pretty simple. Elitist logic I guess
Post by: Houndhunter on May 15, 2014, 11:15:53 PM
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 :rolleyes: But then again not sure how that is really possible since they both arrive in the streams at differant times :dunno: 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????
Post by: teal101 on May 15, 2014, 11:17:16 PM
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.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 :tup: As mentioned before- salmon have the support of commercials and their lobby $$- steelhead, not so much.
Post by: huntnphool on May 16, 2014, 12:08:13 AM
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?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.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.
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" :chuckle:
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.
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 :chuckle:
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. :chuckle:
Post by: steeleywhopper on May 16, 2014, 01:11:14 AM
Post by: Skyvalhunter on May 16, 2014, 05:54:04 AM
Post by: Bullkllr on May 16, 2014, 07:51:21 AM
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 :tup: :drool:.
Post by: grundy53 on May 16, 2014, 07:59:35 AM
Post by: teal101 on May 16, 2014, 08:44:07 AM
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 :tup: :drool:.
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://www.salmonnation.com/essays/hatcheries.html)
http://deptwildsalmon.org/resources/literature/hatcheries-and-enhancement/ (http://deptwildsalmon.org/resources/literature/hatcheries-and-enhancement/)
http://www.npafc.org/new/publications/Bulletin/Bulletin%20No.%202/pages%20155-163(Noakes).PDF (http://www.npafc.org/new/publications/Bulletin/Bulletin%20No.%202/pages%20155-163(Noakes).PDF)
Post by: fast60eddie on May 16, 2014, 08:54:02 AM
Post by: snowpack on May 16, 2014, 09:13:11 AM
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.
Post by: Bullkllr on May 16, 2014, 09:14:14 AM
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 :tup: :drool:.
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://www.salmonnation.com/essays/hatcheries.html)
http://deptwildsalmon.org/resources/literature/hatcheries-and-enhancement/ (http://deptwildsalmon.org/resources/literature/hatcheries-and-enhancement/)
http://www.npafc.org/new/publications/Bulletin/Bulletin%20No.%202/pages%20155-163(Noakes).PDF (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.
Post by: snowpack on May 16, 2014, 09:22:02 AM
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.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 :tup: :drool:.
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://www.salmonnation.com/essays/hatcheries.html)
http://deptwildsalmon.org/resources/literature/hatcheries-and-enhancement/ (http://deptwildsalmon.org/resources/literature/hatcheries-and-enhancement/)
http://www.npafc.org/new/publications/Bulletin/Bulletin%20No.%202/pages%20155-163(Noakes).PDF (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.
Post by: teal101 on May 16, 2014, 09:46:46 AM
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.
Post by: Antlershed on May 16, 2014, 10:25:34 AM
Post by: Bullkllr on May 16, 2014, 10:56:41 AM
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.
Shortsightedness...you bet. Still not sure I'm seeing the greed you mention. I think it's more "giving in to insurmountable factors" in many cases.
What I'm really talking about here is how there is next to nothing being done about a laundry list of factors negatively impacting our steelhead. The ONE that is being done away with is the one that will perhaps have the least positive effect. And it will have the impact of removing the only people who have a reason to care about steelhead from the equation. It's perhaps a tiny gain for wild fish, but it's not worth the cost. All because of the politics involved, and the DFW took the easiest target. And fishermen (and fish!) are hosed again. The continued overflow of anglers to peninsula streams alone makes this a horrible decision.
And now it's fishermen's own fault if rivers never reopen?...it's societies fault, dude, which means all of us. Enjoying that cheap Chelan/Douglas County PUD power much...?
Post by: teal101 on May 16, 2014, 11:06:37 AM
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.
Shortsightedness...you bet. Still not sure I'm seeing the greed you mention. I think it's more "giving in to insurmountable factors" in many cases.
What I'm really talking about here is how there is next to nothing being done about a laundry list of factors negatively impacting our . The ONE that is being done away with is the one that will perhaps have the least positive effect. And it will have the impact of removing the only people who have a reason to care about steelhead from the equation. It's perhaps a tiny gain for wild fish, but it's not worth the cost.
And now it's fishermen's own fault if rivers never reopen?...it's societies fault, dude, which means all of us. Enjoying that check Chelan County PUD power much...?
I agree there is very little being done about the big impact factors. The WDFW follows the money sadly. I agree with the closure of the hatcheries. I dont agree with WDFW's reasoning on this one though. I also dont agree with their lack of initiative to improve other factors effecting wild fish. The greed is the thought process of "Keep planting so I have something to catch, regardless of future consequences". It's ignoring what is better for the species as a whole for personal gain.
If fisherman give up on a fish species because they cant fish for them due to lack of numbers, yes they are a contributing factor. The blame is not all on them, I agree it is societies fault as a whole. The mentality of just giving up on Steelhead when the fishing closes though is wrong. I'd gladly pay an increase in my power bill if it helped restore Salmon and Steelhead runs so I can fish for them in the future and so that my kids can. Many arent willing to make that sacrifice. One step furthers the cause, unfortunately there are MANY more steps that need to be taken, many of which I've mentioned, that WDFW is doing nothing about. The mining is a big one, one which Idaho and Oregon have figured out.
Post by: teal101 on May 16, 2014, 11:09:01 AM
Because once we give up our fishing, we will never get it back. Do you think these Wild Fish groups will EVER be ok with us bonking a native steelhead? :rolleyes:
Many of the wild Steelhead groups are fishers. The idea is to restore the runs so a catch and release fishery can eventually open up on most of the closed rivers followed by an allowable harvest. The thought process behind the wild fish groups is not to end fishing, it is to restore the population to naturally sustain fishing. I cant speak for all groups as there are the radical ones that want all harvest done away with, but that is not the agenda of many of the wild fish groups.
Post by: BOWHUNTER45 on May 16, 2014, 11:33:29 AM
I am lost on your logic ...all these fishing groups obviously mean nothing ..they will not ever change the rules from those who are making the rules ... I am so discussed over how the state of Washington manages anything ...from elk -deer or fish ...all they care about is money ..the money the sportsmen throw at them should be used for the resources and not in some money hungry politician ...We all know its about the Indians and they just give us enough so we keep donating ...we need a serious up rising on all the issues ...Either we all just quit or let everything die and no one has to worry about it ...You want to bring more Native fish back ? Do not we all ! But the only ones that will benefit from it is the Indians ...Our rivers should be full of fish year around so we all can enjoy but they do not want us to ..otherwise they would be talking in a positive way so we all will listen and participate ..All they talk about is finding ways to take it away ...I am tired of it and they can all jump in the river and hope they sink to the bottom and become fish food ! I say I am sorry BUT I REALLY AM NOT !! These kids now days have nothing to do and half of them can not even find a job and you would think they would do whatever they could to make the resources a viable as they should be doing ...the whole issue comes down to Native Steelhead ...once they take it away we will never enjoy it again ...I do not trust the son of a beaches at all !! :twocents:Because once we give up our fishing, we will never get it back. Do you think these Wild Fish groups will EVER be ok with us bonking a native steelhead? :rolleyes:
Many of the wild Steelhead groups are fishers. The idea is to restore the runs so a catch and release fishery can eventually open up on most of the closed rivers followed by an allowable harvest. The thought process behind the wild fish groups is not to end fishing, it is to restore the population to naturally sustain fishing. I cant speak for all groups as there are the radical ones that want all harvest done away with, but that is not the agenda of many of the wild fish groups.
Post by: RG on May 16, 2014, 12:34:52 PM
Post by: singleshot12 on May 16, 2014, 01:24:35 PM
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... :tung: :tung: :chuckle: :chuckle: :chuckle:
Now that's funny... but really not a bad idea! It would definitely create more opportunity right? and that's really whats it all about. Half of our hunting and fishing is already "generic" why not have it all now.the future is here :dunno:
WE WANT OUR HATCHERY BRATS BACK!!! :chuckle:
Post by: singleshot12 on May 16, 2014, 01:31:38 PM
I am lost on your logic ...all these fishing groups obviously mean nothing ..they will not ever change the rules from those who are making the rules ... I am so discussed over how the state of Washington manages anything ...from elk -deer or fish ...all they care about is money ..the money the sportsmen throw at them should be used for the resources and not in some money hungry politician ...We all know its about the Indians and they just give us enough so we keep donating ...we need a serious up rising on all the issues ...Either we all just quit or let everything die and no one has to worry about it ...You want to bring more Native fish back ? Do not we all ! But the only ones that will benefit from it is the Indians ...Our rivers should be full of fish year around so we all can enjoy but they do not want us to ..otherwise they would be talking in a positive way so we all will listen and participate ..All they talk about is finding ways to take it away ...I am tired of it and they can all jump in the river and hope they sink to the bottom and become fish food ! I say I am sorry BUT I REALLY AM NOT !! These kids now days have nothing to do and half of them can not even find a job and you would think they would do whatever they could to make the resources a viable as they should be doing ...the whole issue comes down to Native Steelhead ...once they take it away we will never enjoy it again ...I do not trust the son of a beaches at all !! :twocents:Because once we give up our fishing, we will never get it back. Do you think these Wild Fish groups will EVER be ok with us bonking a native steelhead? :rolleyes:
Many of the wild Steelhead groups are fishers. The idea is to restore the runs so a catch and release fishery can eventually open up on most of the closed rivers followed by an allowable harvest. The thought process behind the wild fish groups is not to end fishing, it is to restore the population to naturally sustain fishing. I cant speak for all groups as there are the radical ones that want all harvest done away with, but that is not the agenda of many of the wild fish groups.
BH45 SPEAKS TRUTH :tup:
Post by: 4fletch on May 16, 2014, 05:27:47 PM
Post by: stevemiller on May 16, 2014, 09:24:56 PM
Post by: stevemiller on May 16, 2014, 09:27:22 PM
Post by: snowpack on May 16, 2014, 09:59:45 PM
Could someone explain to me what the scientific problem is with putting hatchery fish in the rivers to begin with,Not some oppinion either.Did they use some mixture of non steelehead to make the hatchery steelies or what?Im not understanding the poor gene problem.The hatchery fish in question came from Chambers Creek near Tacoma. I believe they were selected because of their run timing, many start returning in November with the bulk around Christmas to New Year's. So they are actual sea-run rainbow/steelhead and from the Puget Sound region. The way they are now, they have been bred in captivity for many generations and shared amongst hatcheries. They've become I guess a good term is a 'generic' steelhead. The only scientific argument I've heard of for having any real impact on wild fish is the competition for food. The interbreeding, from what I've read, hasn't been shown to be a large factor. I think it was like less than a percent of wild fish are bred by hatchery fish. Most hatchery fish return to the hatchery with a small percentage straying up to the redds (I think it was like 2%). The hatchery fish tend to arrive so much earlier that if they are waiting around upstream for months, they are more likely to be lost due to slides and high water. Then there is also the issue with ability to breed--the hatchery fish are reported to not do a good job at it and don't produce all that many fry outside of a hatchery environment. So all the low percentages combined give a much lower percentage.
Post by: Bullkllr on May 17, 2014, 09:02:38 AM
As I am aware, the Chambers Creek stock originated at the Chambers Creek Hatchery. Apparently the natural run there has been extinct for awhile (not sure how long). The present CC stock is considered to be a "mutt", ie a conglomeration of various stocks (including actual CC stock) from various systems when it was "created" back in the 50s. So basically it's a "generic" stock resulting from various crossbreeding attempts as they selected for early returning winter fish. Since it's used all over Western Washington (and hatcheries typically spawn their own returning fish), it may be a slightly different stain returning to, say, the Bogachiel than to the Cowlitz for instance. But, yes, the genetics are way different than any fish that existed naturally wherever they are currently used.
Another impact of the early returning hatchery fish that I think it would be a mistake to overlook has been the near elimination of the early returning wild fish. Historically (before my time) wild winter runs were often reported to be as common in December as in March. But by "creating" the early-returning hatchery run two things happened:
1. Hatchery fish attempt to spawn with wilds- effectively taking the wild fish out of the gene pool as the spawning typically is a wasted effort for viable production (x multiple generations = significant impact). More a concern when you actually have the two runs converging in the same time-frame, obviously.
And 2. Perhaps the bigger impact was focusing harvest effort (both sport and tribal) on the time period the hatchery fish were returning in large numbers. Early returning wild fish were harvested at a higher rate along with the hatchery fish (again, x over multiple generations), seriously depleting and in some cases nearly eliminating that component of the wild runs.
The defunct Snider Creek project on the Sol Duc was focused on collecting and spawning early-retuning wild fish in an effort to rebuild those numbers.
Post by: stevemiller on May 17, 2014, 08:52:51 PM
Post by: Bullkllr on May 17, 2014, 10:31:19 PM
why do a lot of people say that st. helens eruption is the cause of the downfall of fish in wa. ?
The most obvious and intense impact of the eruption was the mud flow that basically obliterated the North Toutle river. The channel was scoured and widened. All fish present were killed and habitat will be affected for generations. Sediment is still flowing out of the deposits left by the eruption, but less heavy now than in the past. Fish are gradually coming back, but with the river still looking like liquid cement during hot weather spells or when it rains much; it's no wonder they're slow in coming back. The South Toutle was affected, but not as heavily as the North- and has recovered faster and so have it's fish. The lower Cowlitz below the Toutle still runs pretty colored when the Toutle's pumping sediment- that and the main Toutle could have enough of a sediment load to affect fish survival I imagine( :dunno:).
Outside of the stream devastation in the immediate area of the eruption, I really couldn't say what other negative impacts there could be :dunno:. Some of the lakes up really close to the mountain had trout survive the eruption- and I guess they are still doing well 34 years later.
Post by: BigGoonTuna on May 18, 2014, 06:12:41 AM
why do a lot of people say that st. helens eruption is the cause of the downfall of fish in wa. ?i'm going off on a tangent here, but i know a lot of people say the spiny ray fishing in eastern washington took a big dive after the mountain blew up. not sure if it was all the ash changing something in the lakes or if it is a coincidence with something else though.
i'd be willing that the north toutle would have been a decent river again had the army corps hadn't built that stupid sediment dam. the south fork runs gin clear almost year round now. the north fork on the other hand only really turns a "fishable" green for a few weeks in late summer and that's only if there's no rain.
Post by: stevemiller on May 18, 2014, 10:00:19 AM
Post by: Bullkllr on May 18, 2014, 10:48:50 AM
Yeah thats what I thought,Nature destroyed the fish not people.Unless some of you think the eruption was caused by us,Then we ,The stewards of nature SHOULD be bringing back what we can when we can,Even if it is not as perfect as some would want it to be.We are only ever 1 big natural disaster away from losing more than just a fish that came from this creek verses that stream give me a break. :twocents:
I'm not really sure where you're going with that idea or how it relates to the topic exactly. Nature is harsh. Most of the streams in the Cascade range (and the fish that returned to them) were shaped by eons of natural change, and volcanic eruptions were a large part of that. But picture how the fish themselves evolved though those environmental changes. They were perfectly adapted to the conditions in the streams of their origin. That is exactly what makes our native salmon and steelhead so special (and unique to each region/watershed). And it also helps explain why human efforts to "fix" things or bring runs back have largely been unsuccessful. Regardless of how bad we have screwed things up, nature will take care of things in the long run; most of us just don't have a few hundred/thousand years to wait around for that to happen, unfortunately. With enough money and will, humans can do some amazing things, but steelhead are pretty far down on the 'powers-that-be's' priority list it seems.
Post by: Bullkllr on May 18, 2014, 10:56:42 AM
why do a lot of people say that st. helens eruption is the cause of the downfall of fish in wa. ?i'm going off on a tangent here, but i know a lot of people say the spiny ray fishing in eastern washington took a big dive after the mountain blew up. not sure if it was all the ash changing something in the lakes or if it is a coincidence with something else though.
i'd be willing that the north toutle would have been a decent river again had the army corps hadn't built that stupid sediment dam. the south fork runs gin clear almost year round now. the north fork on the other hand only really turns a "fishable" green for a few weeks in late summer and that's only if there's no rain.
Agreed. It would be better to have just let it flush. The river just upstream from the sediment dam is almost unrecognizable as a river.
Post by: snowpack on May 18, 2014, 11:14:16 AM
Yeah thats what I thought,Nature destroyed the fish not people.Unless some of you think the eruption was caused by us,Then we ,The stewards of nature SHOULD be bringing back what we can when we can,Even if it is not as perfect as some would want it to be.We are only ever 1 big natural disaster away from losing more than just a fish that came from this creek verses that stream give me a break. :twocents:I think that there are some cases where humans have some major impacts. I don't think Puget Sound got much of an effect from Mount St Helens. The Cowlitz and Columbia (and the Toutle as mentioned) did, but rivers change so much on their own that I think they can handle most anything people tend to do short of channeling or damming. A half inch of rain in 24 hours raises level and flow of some of the rivers I go to enough to move more gravel/silt/trees/river banks/etc that it exceeds anything I've seen people do.
For Puget Sound fish, I've heard that the one of the more likely causes were people. The theory I heard about is that the trawlers basically disc plowed the kelp fields all around the sound while dragging for cod, dogfish, etc. And the kelp hasn't really grown back yet. A few areas have some, but not like it was before. The herring and some other fish would lay their eggs in the kelp and eelgrass, but without the kelp the herring declined. I've read by about 90%. So now when the steelhead and salmon leave the rivers they have to swim through more open water instead of being able to hide in the kelp and are more likely to be eaten by predators (especially returning salmon)--a smolt is about the same size as a herring. But I don't know how well that holds, since areas outside of the sound have all kinds of fish declines too. :dunno:
Post by: Cultusman on May 18, 2014, 07:22:56 PM
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? :chuckle:
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:QuoteSteelhead
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.
It doesn't take to many brain cells to figure out that the winter time netting is not the only time native winter steelhead are caught. Nets were in the Skagit just last week targeting springers,but nets don't target just one species,they are also killing spawned native winter run headed back to sea.
Shouldn't be to much longer before there all gone,then some educated idiot will blame it on loss of habitat.