Hey Salmo, your still a "turkey!(jk)

I haven't had a chance lately to torment you at any of our Tacoma's meetings, so I must take advantage, and do it here. You always seem to prove worthy of coming up with good answers!

Since everyone here (including me) usually respects your professional opinion on "fisheries issues", I got a question
that I would like you to answer. You known, you kind of question that makes you give me that funny looking face sometimes!

My question to you is about hatcheries, and what many "scientists" may perceive to be the problems that are reportedly related to the "negative effects" of our hatcheries. I know that you have worked for, run, and helped design hatcheries over the years, and that you are also a biologist. I would think that at the time you were doing it, you probably thought, and truly believed that you were doing it right (knowing you, it was "right" at the time).

Anyway, I was thinking of you the other day when I was listening to the news and was taken by surprise by what I had just heard! It was a "scientific report" (and study) that had just been released on the "the negative effects of secondary smoking" (I known how you like using science). I hate first stage smoking and can't stand secondary smoke either, so the "scientific report" took me by surprise! Apparently, the report was a scientific report that was done on the "long term side effects of secondary smoking", and it took a real deep look over a 43 year period. Grant it, the "old tobacco companies boys" helped pay for some of long term study, but so did we and others. So it was not just paid for by the "bad guys"!

Basically, the scientists had found that "secondary smoking" DID NOT have the effects on people that everyone had first though that they have had, and in fact, it showed that there was "no more higher rates" in lung cancer or heart disease in the people who were exposed (i.e. a none smoker spouse, wife/husband/child) to it them then those that were not continually exposed to them. The study did not say that smoking or "secondary smoke" did not have "other" negative effects, (sounds like hatcheries to me) but it did say that after studying, testing and reviewing a large number of participants for over 43 years, that the "science" has now showed that the results of "secondary smoking" did not have the effects that the scientists had originally first thought it did. Yea, I have too have my doubts, but if the facts of this study remain undisputed, it begs us to be compared it to how some scientists and hatcheries critics may justify closing our hatcheries by their misunderstanding of what the "long term" effects of our hatcheries may really be!

So here's my question. If all these "numerous" scientists have spent millions and millions of dollars on all of those "short term" scientific studies which supported their early conclusions and now we find that their "conclusions" were indeed wrong, what's going to happen to all those none smoking laws and restrictions? I known their will be many that will dispute the findings, but the "long term" results of that study are going to be hard for them to dispute with science!

So how can I compare this to our hatchery problems? Simple, the "hatcheries" are being credited by a group of "scientists" as being the "direct cause" that has brought on the decline of our wild fish runs to our rivers.

That current "scientific theory" has only been developed over the past 10 years or less, just like the "secondary smoke" theory was also developed. Again, please don't get me wrong, I think that the "secondary smoking" effects can kill you, but now the current scientific "long term study" says otherwise! The most current scientific long term results are in, and they now are saying that's there is no science to support that "secondary smoke" is a cause of cancer or heart disease!

After all those millions and millions of dollars were spent and all those countless scientific studies were done; they are now telling us that the "long term studies" has shown that the original "short term" scientific studies were wrong!

So what does that tell us about how we may be applying "science" to our hatcheries? Should we be closing down all of these hatcheries and assuming (ass-u-me) that the "short term" results of science is correct, and that it will be bringing back our wild fish runs; or should we be "testing" this "short term theory of science" out on just a "few specialized rivers" to see if, indeed the "hatchery" are the cause of the problem?

In my opinion (and you known, I usually have one them), that this is the only "way to the means" that the people who are claiming that the hatcheries are the problems can be scientifically supported! I am sure that in some specific cases and location/or rivers, "a" single hatchery may well be "the problem", but to paint the "bigger picture" that all hatcheries are "the problem" is just a plain simple minded way of thinking (my opinion).

Before we start shutting down anymore of our hatcheries, let's just stop and see what the "science" has really found out about all of the "hatcheries" that have already been shut or closed down over the past 10 years. What has happen to all that "fishery data" on those rivers, and will it be able to support that the closer of those hatcheries; has it resulted in the "rebuilding" of those so called "wild runs" in those same rivers or streams? I hear a lot lip-service out there from the guys who keep saying that we ought to "shut them all down", but I never hear a word from those same guys telling us, or showing us, where the "shutting down" of any of those hatcheries had actually shown that a documented recovery had actually occurred. It can be said, that if a run can not be self- sustained, that it would most likely parish anyway.

Finally, is it the mentality of the c&r people, that as long as wild fish return, hatcheries are not needed? Do the c&r people really believe that their masses of people out-number the masses of people who want to have the opportunity to harvest when "they" choose to?

OK, beside you Salmo,

It's a lot for people to think about and to criticize, so let the BS fly!!!

Cowlitzfisherman