Post by: huntnphool on January 29, 2010, 11:09:38 PM
Post by: Shootmoore on January 29, 2010, 11:27:00 PM
Speaking of hatcheries, the Colvilles are supposed to break ground on there hatchery on the Columbia this spring. IF they can get good workers for the hatchery it should make the okanogan and upper columbia a premier fishery for salmon.
Shootmoore
Post by: fishcrazy on January 30, 2010, 10:08:44 AM
Nice!
Speaking of hatcheries, the Colvilles are supposed to break ground on there hatchery on the Columbia this spring. IF they can get good workers for the hatchery it should make the okanogan and upper columbia a premier fishery for salmon.
Shootmoore
I have been following this for about a year. I'm looking forward to what it should do for the lower river below the BIG WALL. I was told they are going to plant both spring and summer nookie. Not sure of the return numbers they are hopeing to get.
Kris
Post by: Shootmoore on January 30, 2010, 10:19:00 AM
Nice!
Speaking of hatcheries, the Colvilles are supposed to break ground on there hatchery on the Columbia this spring. IF they can get good workers for the hatchery it should make the okanogan and upper columbia a premier fishery for salmon.
Shootmoore
Springs, Summers and they are bouncing the idea of coho as well. I'm not sure what there eact return goals are. But I do know that it is a higher production number than the 4 state hatcheries in the Wells complex combined. IF they can get the springer numbers up and the State allows us to fish them it could be a huge spring/summer run through the Columbia.
Shootmoore
I have been following this for about a year. I'm looking forward to what it should do for the lower river below the BIG WALL. I was told they are going to plant both spring and summer nookie. Not sure of the return numbers they are hopeing to get.
Kris
Post by: huntnphool on January 30, 2010, 11:34:27 PM
Post by: Shootmoore on January 31, 2010, 10:01:16 AM
If done right Lake Washington should be full of decent fish year around.
Who's going to be running the hatchery? The city, state or a private outfit?
Shootmoore
Post by: huntnphool on January 31, 2010, 10:04:28 AM
Post by: Shootmoore on January 31, 2010, 10:11:27 AM
No idea
Ok sure make me do my own research. It is a replacement hatchery for the one that opened in 1991. Its paid for by Seattle Public Utilities and run by the wdfw. To be completed in 2011. Production capacity will be 34 million fry. We will see if the bio's will allow them to produce that many. Most state hatcheries don't produce anything close to production capacity do to the bio's desire to protect "wild stock". But I am always exicited to see upgrades and capacity increases in our hatcheries. To bad they are talking about shutting down other hatcheries and contiunue to cut production numbers.
Shootmoore
Post by: huntnphool on January 31, 2010, 10:28:58 AM
Quote
Production capacity will be 34 million fry. We will see if the bio's will allow them to produce that many. Most state hatcheries don't produce anything close to production capacity do to the bio's desire to protect "wild stock".
Sounds like they will be able to rear more thsn just sockeye, that would be fantastic, although I am really excited that the sockeye fishery could be a lot more frequent.
Post by: Dmanmastertracker on February 02, 2010, 12:09:04 PM
Post by: O_mykiss on February 07, 2010, 12:13:48 AM
Post by: huntnphool on February 07, 2010, 12:33:51 AM
Post by: O_mykiss on February 07, 2010, 10:31:44 AM
A new hatchery won't change the survival of the sockeye in the river,Lake Washington, or Puget sound/Pacific. WDFW already releases 17 million plus fry per year(at least thats the goal). Being able to rear more fry and conseqently release more fry is a dead end. There is not a linear relationship of input to returns and in fact, there might be the reverse relationship in most cases....
There ARE however, three native species of Onchorhynchus in the river already (Fall chinook, coho and steelhead) that are basically on life support. Money would be much better spent on habitat issues in the lower Cedar (which all these fish rely on) than ramrodding sockeye into the Cedar in perpetuity...
These native fishes will certainly not benefit from a new sockeye hatchery and especially won't benefit from hatchery supplementation to "recover" their numbers....research in the last decade+ has shown time and time again that hatcheries produce inferior product as compared to wild production and, in fact, lower the fitness of wild production fish. Look at what is happening on the Quillayute system RIGHT NOW...The Snyder Creek "supplementation" steelhead returning right now that were ment to provide oppurtunity for sportsmen contracted IHN in the hatchery as smolts, were released anyway, and now are interbreeding and infecting wild fish as we speak.
It is ludicris to continue to expect that hatcheries are the answer to our problems... especially in the light of the historical poor performance of the Cedar sockeye hatchery...especially in light of evidence that suggests hatcheries lower the fitness of wild fish and especially with the potential demise of steelhead on our coast looming as a direct result of hatchery influence and the incompetence of WDFW and tribes at the helm.
So no, I'm not in favor of the hatchery.
Post by: fishseeker on February 07, 2010, 11:35:43 AM
Post by: huntnphool on February 07, 2010, 11:45:33 AM
Post by: rougheye on February 07, 2010, 12:01:54 PM
Post by: nwlynx22 on February 09, 2010, 01:52:39 AM
Post by: Shootmoore on February 09, 2010, 10:44:43 AM
In case people don't know, there are clicks in the WDFW now that want to close down all the hatchery's and go to a wild run only. While it sounds like a neat idea in the ideological sense with rose colored glasses firmly in place, it would spell the end of fishing as we know it in Washington. Today Washington State can no longer support fishing on a wild run only. The human population in this state and fishing pressure by the big 4 commercial, tribal, poachers and sportsman would wipe out a wild only attempt. To control this here is my thought on the order that the pressure would be cut. Sportsman first, as this would be the easiest, then commercial that would leave the last 2 that the state could not do anything about.
No hatcheries today would mean no fishing by you and I.
Shootmoore
Post by: Dmanmastertracker on February 09, 2010, 03:11:43 PM
I understand the social need for the hatchery....salmon=good, no salmon=bad. Its just that millions of dollars will be spent keeping a non-native and artificial run of fish going (maybe) to support a fishery that is not historically very solvent when it comes to actually providing oppurtunity. Its got a 99.9% chance of becoming just another hole to pour money in.
A new hatchery won't change the survival of the sockeye in the river,Lake Washington, or Puget sound/Pacific. WDFW already releases 17 million plus fry per year(at least thats the goal). Being able to rear more fry and conseqently release more fry is a dead end. There is not a linear relationship of input to returns and in fact, there might be the reverse relationship in most cases....
There ARE however, three native species of Onchorhynchus in the river already (Fall chinook, coho and steelhead) that are basically on life support. Money would be much better spent on habitat issues in the lower Cedar (which all these fish rely on) than ramrodding sockeye into the Cedar in perpetuity...
These native fishes will certainly not benefit from a new sockeye hatchery and especially won't benefit from hatchery supplementation to "recover" their numbers....research in the last decade+ has shown time and time again that hatcheries produce inferior product as compared to wild production and, in fact, lower the fitness of wild production fish. Look at what is happening on the Quillayute system RIGHT NOW...The Snyder Creek "supplementation" steelhead returning right now that were ment to provide oppurtunity for sportsmen contracted IHN in the hatchery as smolts, were released anyway, and now are interbreeding and infecting wild fish as we speak.
It is ludicris to continue to expect that hatcheries are the answer to our problems... especially in the light of the historical poor performance of the Cedar sockeye hatchery...especially in light of evidence that suggests hatcheries lower the fitness of wild fish and especially with the potential demise of steelhead on our coast looming as a direct result of hatchery influence and the incompetence of WDFW and tribes at the helm.
So no, I'm not in favor of the hatchery.
Balderdash, the entire natural spawning run of Sockeye on the Duwamish of several hundred thousand fish was established by hatchery strays from Rivers like the Cedar, prior to any hatchery production on the Duwamish.
Post by: jackelope on February 09, 2010, 03:55:54 PM
The Cedar has turned into a toilet for poachers and general pukes doing whatever they feel like doing on the river(maybe ever since they re-opened it to trout fishing). Someone ought to consider doing something to clean up the river and it's poaching issues before they move to increase the success rate of said poachers.
:twocents:
Post by: Dmanmastertracker on February 09, 2010, 04:05:13 PM
Creating more fish on the Cedar isn't going to create more tweaker's, that is a law enforcement issue, they are there 24-7 now.... We should have two different types of "cleanups" on local rivers... :twocents:
Post by: Dmanmastertracker on February 09, 2010, 04:11:32 PM
A good read on it, note the entire run was artificially created from Baker Lake stock...
Post by: jackelope on February 09, 2010, 08:55:58 PM
Quote
"A new hatchery won't change the survival of the sockeye in the river,Lake Washington, or Puget sound/Pacific". I'm pretty up to speed on all the latest studies on survival of these fish and up to this point it has been inconclusive what has caused the decline in numbers of Sockeye, most scientist's believe it has been the El Nino current's prohibiting return, as far as anything I've read, blaming any kind of existing hatchery production is grabbing at straws.
I think your statement solidifies his statement here. in other words...he's saying the hatchery isn't gonna help more sockeye survive, which is pretty much what you're saying. I see no straw grabbing at all.
Quote
Creating more fish on the Cedar isn't going to create more tweaker's, that is a law enforcement issue, they are there 24-7 now.... We should have two different types of "cleanups" on local rivers...
agreed, thats why i said:
The Cedar has turned into a toilet for poachers and general pukes doing whatever they feel like doing on the river(maybe ever since they re-opened it to trout fishing). Someone ought to consider doing something to clean up the river and it's poaching issues before they move to increase the success rate of said poachers.
putting more fish in the river is gonna give the current poachers an increased success ratio....awesome.
I have fished the cedar 2 times since it reopened to fishing a few years ago. there's some awesome trout in there to be caught. the 2nd time I was there a few years agosomebody shot a hole in the door of my bud's brand new Duramax truck. I haven't been back since. not really the point of this discussion i realize...just further evidence of the quality individuals the wdfw will be feeding with this hatchery on the river.
p.s. I'm not a elitist purist anything, nor am i against the hatchery.
Post by: Tealer on February 10, 2010, 12:01:34 AM
Post by: Dmanmastertracker on February 10, 2010, 07:59:40 AM
Sorry to hear about your truck :'(.
There are two issue's related to this, I will never agree with; A) Hatchery fish are different genetically from wild fish, and B) Introducing more hatchery fish into any system is detrimental to native fish when done correctly. There are benefits to native fish from adding more hatchery fish to the mix. Native steelhead smolt will feed on Sockeye frye, additionally, the more species in any given river and number of fish in that system, being a former WRIA Rep., I know that funding is more available for habitat improvements for more "productive" streams. If a stream only supports (X) amount of fish, the need for habitat spending is reduced, the more the merrier.
Post by: kbyers on February 10, 2010, 08:51:57 AM
Most WILD fish are hatchery escapees offspring. Hence no clipped fin, there are studies that I have read that suggest that the offspring of the escapees are as strong as wild fish.
I have fished for steelhead above McNary 9 of the last 14 days and let me share some of my observations real quick. In those 9 days we have caught 3 hatchery fish and over 55 wild fish. I have seen 4 other hatchery fish caught. The largest 2 hatchery fish caught were 12.5 lbs and 11 lbs. My largest wild fish was about 9.5 lbs. The average fish was 25-27 inches and caught 4 or 5 under 20.
So I started to wonder, how many hatchery fish never get their fin clipped? And I guarantee the number of non clipped hatchery fish is higher with the fish that the tribes release. It is really hard to net and release >:(
Post by: jackelope on February 10, 2010, 10:16:59 AM