#1060817 - 10/29/22 11:09 AM
Re: Surplus Hatchery Fish
[Re: seabeckraised]
|
Three Time Spawner
Registered: 02/24/00
Posts: 1500
|
dog food cat food fertilizer the whole works..
_________________________
Where Destroying Fishing in Washington..
mainly region 6
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#1060818 - 10/29/22 12:51 PM
Re: Surplus Hatchery Fish
[Re: seabeckraised]
|
River Nutrients
Registered: 03/03/09
Posts: 4395
Loc: Somewhere on the planet,I hope
|
WDFW has a contract that is open to bids and the contractor is required to take all carcasses regardless of condition from all WDFW facilities. A fish that has been opened ( spawned by cutting them open ) at the facility or is a mortality ( died for some reason ) is not allowed for human consumption.
The fish have many uses from eggs for cheap caviar, bait manufacturers, to fish by products. Very few salmon get recycled or carcasses put out in watersheds. WDFW does not (or did not) get the funds generated but rather the $$$$ go too the volunteer programs.
One of the slams on hatcheries is the "surplus" that commercials and Recs scream are wasted. Facts are that you damn well better have a surplus in mixed H&W stock watersheds such as the Chehalis because you manage to the WILD escapement not the minimum hatchery needs which is only a fraction of the need of wild salmon escapement.
That 15k are at Bingham this early is unusual with the current flows. That 15k is about the fish coming in very early in huge numbers and getting up above the NT and QIN commercials. What surprises me is that the jack count is about half of last year but on the river there were a lot of jacks.
_________________________
Dazed and confused.............the fog is closing in
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#1060820 - 10/29/22 01:42 PM
Re: Surplus Hatchery Fish
[Re: seabeckraised]
|
Three Time Spawner
Registered: 06/03/06
Posts: 1515
Loc: Tacoma
|
Take a look at the Skokomish hatchery. Over 26000 to the hatchery. I believe the number was higher than the entire ocean Recreational chinook quota. This after there is a tribal and non-tribal fishery targeting them. At times it truely is a waste.
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#1060822 - 10/29/22 04:59 PM
Re: Surplus Hatchery Fish
[Re: seabeckraised]
|
River Nutrients
Registered: 03/03/09
Posts: 4395
Loc: Somewhere on the planet,I hope
|
jacks are still present and will be until flows jump which may be Monday.
_________________________
Dazed and confused.............the fog is closing in
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#1060823 - 10/29/22 07:27 PM
Re: Surplus Hatchery Fish
[Re: seabeckraised]
|
Fry
Registered: 04/15/12
Posts: 35
|
The carcasses should have to go back into the river to feed the system, does anyone stop to think that the massive amount of nutrients that used to feed the river ecosystem is now shipped off to who the hell knows and maybe thats why fish populations are dropping?
And if not that, then anyone with a valid license should be able to go to a hatchery that has received they're qouta and get 2 fish, especially the skokomish.
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#1060824 - 10/29/22 08:03 PM
Re: Surplus Hatchery Fish
[Re: seabeckraised]
|
Dah Rivah Stinkah Pink Mastah
Registered: 08/23/06
Posts: 6192
Loc: zipper
|
riverbanks, gravel bars, and low hanging branches used to be loaded with rotting salmon after a high water. Not any more.
_________________________
... Propping up an obsolete fishing industry at the expense of sound fisheries management is irresponsible. -Sg
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#1060826 - 10/30/22 06:14 AM
Re: Surplus Hatchery Fish
[Re: deadly]
|
River Nutrients
Registered: 03/03/09
Posts: 4395
Loc: Somewhere on the planet,I hope
|
We did that on the Satsop, carcasses that is. It is a whole lot harder than you make it out. You first cannot jump watersheds, disease protocols, need to mark the carcasses by cutting the tail off, and transport them to preapproved locations and place them in the streams.
It can be done but it is labor intensive and a little spendy. For WDFW to do it I would be afraid to see the cost with the union contract and purchasing requirements.
_________________________
Dazed and confused.............the fog is closing in
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#1060832 - 10/30/22 10:35 AM
Re: Surplus Hatchery Fish
[Re: seabeckraised]
|
River Nutrients
Registered: 11/21/07
Posts: 7440
Loc: Olema,California,Planet Earth
|
As Rivrguy noted, putting those carcasses out is very labor intensive. Plus, of course, you need access to the stream(s). The disease protocols are a major constraint.
The other piece is that all the carcasses that come back to all the hatcheries are (maybe) enough for one river system. We are in that big of a hole.
Further, our Legislature has mandated where some of the fish go; there are all sorts of rules about what can be done with them.
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#1060833 - 10/30/22 11:19 AM
Re: Surplus Hatchery Fish
[Re: seabeckraised]
|
River Nutrients
Registered: 10/28/09
Posts: 3310
|
Those who know me know I'm in the not enough rotting salmon crowd. I think those marine-derived nutrients are (or were) a critical piece of the puzzle, for both anadromous and resident populations.
As a person who does a lot of fly fishing, I have come to understand that our (mostly) glacial streams have much lower aquatic insect populations than, say, Rocky Mountain streams, and as a result, resident (and burgeoning anadromous) fish have relatively little insect forage. That means growing fish depend on "other" food sources, most notably the fry and fingerlings of other (or the same!) species, supplemented by the rotting carcasses of their parent generations. Deprive a system of those critical nutrients, and it translates to less food for burgeoning populations. The result can only be increased predation on smaller fish, which in turn reduces the fry and smolt populations of all species. Not hard to imagine how that would be a recipe for decline over time.
The solution (increase escapement goals) is maddeningly simple, yet at the same time, it is prohibitively complex. Bad situation, both for fish and the anglers who seek them.
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#1060834 - 10/30/22 11:26 AM
Re: Surplus Hatchery Fish
[Re: seabeckraised]
|
Returning Adult
Registered: 02/15/21
Posts: 306
|
- putting those carcasses out is very labor intensive.
- Plus, of course, you need access to the stream(s).
- The disease protocols are a major constraint.
- The other piece is that all the carcasses that come back to all the hatcheries are (maybe) enough for one river system. We are in that big of a hole.
- Further, our Legislature has mandated where some of the fish go;
Always the insurmountable excuses, with the last one so strongly based in science, no wonder the return numbers tank...
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#1060836 - 10/30/22 12:05 PM
Re: Surplus Hatchery Fish
[Re: 20 Gage]
|
Three Time Spawner
Registered: 01/29/19
Posts: 1501
|
- putting those carcasses out is very labor intensive.
- Plus, of course, you need access to the stream(s).
- The disease protocols are a major constraint.
- The other piece is that all the carcasses that come back to all the hatcheries are (maybe) enough for one river system. We are in that big of a hole.
- Further, our Legislature has mandated where some of the fish go;
Always the insurmountable excuses, with the last one so strongly based in science, no wonder the return numbers tank... indeed. The state can get access just about wherever they need if conservation is concerned. Ive watched the nutrient enhancement in person and its not much more labor intensive than planting trout out of a bag chute. Is disease protocol an issue with the fish that spawn outside the hatcheries, die on the banks, cook a few days on said bank, then get washed back in with a high water.
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#1060837 - 10/30/22 01:24 PM
Re: Surplus Hatchery Fish
[Re: seabeckraised]
|
River Nutrients
Registered: 11/21/07
Posts: 7440
Loc: Olema,California,Planet Earth
|
Access is not being able to just get to the stream, it is getting to all of it. Just because bridges cross every mile or so doesn't mean you can get to the creek. Mounds of carcasses are not exactly a good way to get nutrients in.
Wild fish are just as prone to move bugs around. One of the reasons why there is a an effort to keep any and all anadromous fish out of hatchery water supplies is to keep bugs out.
We should be increasing wild escapement by leaps and bounds. That would be the simplest solution to getting nutrients into the system.
And wild fish are in now way free. One must protect the habitat which means reduce/eliminate water withdrawals, stream side logging, stream side ag, and so on. Plus, a hatchery is simply more efficient at converting water to fish. The complex of hatcheries in Hood Canal produces way more chum salmon for about 100 or 200 cfs. It produced more chum than any of the major river systems. While part of that was poor escapement goals there is the efficiency piece.
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#1060868 - 11/05/22 07:43 AM
Re: Surplus Hatchery Fish
[Re: seabeckraised]
|
River Nutrients
Registered: 11/21/07
Posts: 7440
Loc: Olema,California,Planet Earth
|
It is not just the individual property (private) owner but the public at large. Aren't allowed too dredge rivers, all the development restrictions, and so on apply tp public lands so all of us pay for those "free" fish.
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#1060869 - 11/05/22 07:51 AM
Re: Surplus Hatchery Fish
[Re: seabeckraised]
|
River Nutrients
Registered: 11/21/07
Posts: 7440
Loc: Olema,California,Planet Earth
|
Although I believe that the Fraser sockeye management up to the 80s was probably the best salmon management on the coast they did (purposefully) over harvest some minor stocks to obtain full use of the major ones. This could change as Canada seems to want to shift sockeye (and maybe all salmonids) harvest to the FN fisheries which tend to be in-river and can be more surgical in removing just the target stock.
Even if we had no hatchery stocks (or no wild stocks) there would still be the need for differential harvest rates which could result in surpluses at some locations.
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#1060870 - 11/05/22 08:33 AM
Re: Surplus Hatchery Fish
[Re: Carcassman]
|
Repeat Spawner
Registered: 12/06/07
Posts: 1355
|
This could change as Canada seems to want to shift sockeye (and maybe all salmonids) harvest to the FN fisheries which tend to be in-river and can be more surgical in removing just the target stock. Interesting. Is that in our future?
_________________________
"Life moves pretty fast. If you don't stop and look around once in a while, you could miss it.” – Ferris Bueller. Don't let the old man in!
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#1060871 - 11/05/22 10:11 AM
Re: Surplus Hatchery Fish
[Re: Carcassman]
|
Juvenile at Sea
Registered: 05/12/21
Posts: 230
Loc: Mason County
|
Although I believe that the Fraser sockeye management up to the 80s was probably the best salmon management on the coast they did (purposefully) over harvest some minor stocks to obtain full use of the major ones. This could change as Canada seems to want to shift sockeye (and maybe all salmonids) harvest to the FN fisheries which tend to be in-river and can be more surgical in removing just the target stock.
Even if we had no hatchery stocks (or no wild stocks) there would still be the need for differential harvest rates which could result in surpluses at some locations. FN Fisheries as in First Nations I’m guessing? Seems like a more precise method of targeting versus ocean mixed-stock.
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
0 registered (),
669
Guests and
3
Spiders online. |
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
11498 Members
16 Forums
63786 Topics
645450 Posts
Max Online: 3001 @ 01/28/20 02:48 PM
|
|
|