WHEW!!!

Not my fault JG... I tried to unreason with him.

He is just too nice and civil. Thanks 4Salt.

Sheesh I go fishing for a couple of days and look at what happens! :rolleyes:
Crap I got tomorrow off...might as well load up the truck again and go off in pursuit of more hatchery summer steelies . Those N.F Lewis ones don't fight at all :p ...very inferior fish ! Oh and they appear to be little tiny runts ! Well time to head to the next very poor run of worthless fish . Oh and Joe remember what I told you a "Honyach" was? Peace Bro!

To everyone who was offended by My langauge I am sorry.
But being a true native of washington state I have seen our fisheries rollercoater over the years and have come to the understanding of what has hurt it the most is Commercial over harvest, poor logging practices, urban sprawl, farm chemicals and last but not least tribal gillnetting. All this aside The state has changed the rules of the road for the timber industry. I use to be a part owner in a logging company and from the time I started to the time I sold my half there were drastic changes for the better of all wildlife, and those who did not like it or comply are no longer in business.
When I left the timber industry to get into the sportfishing industry things were at rock bottom, it was 1997 and we were all feeling the affects of all the above listed problems , but there was light at the end of the tunnel. Now here we are 5 years later and it has gotten dramatically better.
Yes you are right that there is serious problems at some of the hatcheries, so lets take some of that money that you want to spend on lawsuits and spend it on fixing the problem instead of paying attorneys fees.
All I am saying is don't buy into W.T.'s so called wonderful fix it plan because it is very one sided and would take many years and no fishing at all to make a difference. There are ways to use the wild fish for reproduction and stock on there home rivers, these broodstocking programs are working wonderfully in most places were they are, that I believe is the path we should all be looking towards because it is a pretty good compromise.
I belong to several enhancement groups and put my time in out there getting wet cold and dirty. Some of you should try it, it is very rewarding.
I would join the W.S.C. , But what is there agenda exactly? do you guys have a mission statement, if so please e-mail me a copy. I have also sent my Wa. Rep from Vision to W.S.C. Meetings to pass out barbless hooks, Has he made it there? have any members got the hooks? if not please e-mail me and let me know, then I can chastize him if he hasn't.
And Jerry Garcia, I love you man, I just want to know were you guys stand in all of this.
And Ramon, I know you mean well, but lawsuits are not the answer.
Peace Superfly

OK Superfly, who wrote that for you? Check out WSC at the banner next to Teds at the top of the page. Because we are a volunteer group and we all like to fish we try to choose one policy at a time to work on. I think we did a decent job on wild release statewide[ this will reappear for the next major rule change cycle]. We are not a secret society, come to a meeting, get involved, you don't have to be a member to come to the meetings. As I said before we are in the process of developing our next step in protecting and promoting wild steelhead. This is a group thing, if you want to be a part of this get on board. Hooks, what hooks?

superfly

1. some rivers don't have enough wild fish left to start a broodstock and in the case of the Washougal (my home river) the wild fish are all infected with IHN that they caught from the hatchery fish there.

2. wild broodstocks although good for fishing have not been proven at being successful at anything else.

3. wild stocks ALWAYS rebound when hatchery fish are eliminated!

If we want restored and reliable runs of fish there is ONLY!!!!!!!! one way to accomplish that and that is to have healthy unharvested runs of wild fish. PERIOD!!!!! That is the only method that has ever been proven successful.

The Kalama research team is now conducting an experiment with the survival rates of a wild brood stocks. If they find that thoes wild broodstocks can spawn and produce adult offspring that are indistinguishable from the wild fish then and only then will a hatchery ever have been successful.
I am not willing to allow the wild fish to go extinct just so a few meathunters can have hatchery fish to fish for.
hatchery fish are a MAJOR limiting factor to wild fish if not the main limiting factor not a minor deal. I think you are hugely underestimating the negative impact they have..

Jerry, Thanks for the heads up on my guy not showing at your meetings, Now I just have to ask him what he did with all those barbless hooks.
RA3, you and your group are stereotyping anglers by whether they bonk fish or not.The largest user of hatchery fish is the Commercials and then the pet food companies. Far more of these fish are caught by them or surplused then we all could catch.
I probably release more fish in a year than you would ever think of catching. Myself I am all for Statewide release of all native fish.
I maybe keep 40 to 60 fish a year for myself , the nieghbors and family and friends, between hatchery steelhead and springers and sprinkle in a few chrome brite ocean silvers, that is it.
By the way one other rule change that we would need to put in place is to keep the flyfisherman from fishing on spawning fish, I have seen so called "prominent Fly guides" fishing there people on spawning steelhead on several peninsula rivers in late march and april.
Peace Superfly

Superfly, your stereotyping flyfishers------- spooners and jiggers and eggers and shrimpers and spinners and flossers and snaggers have all been known to fish over spawning fish------ what about bait and downsteamers?

See 'Fly, that wasn't so hard was it! That was an intelligent, well though-out post that lends so much more credibility to your viewpoint. IMHO.

p.s. I wasn't offended by the language, F**k no!

Small question Jerry since we are on the subject of stereotyping? Is calling those people who support keeping hatcheries "meat hunters" not stereotyping? If your gonna play the game please apply the rules equally.

Meathunters was one word Goose and yes RA3 was also stereotyping!

Joe,

Justin did stop by the last meeting, but only stayed for a minute because he was on his way to a B.A.S.S. meeting to try and sell some Vision bass hooks. He asked me about the next meeting, which isn't until next month, as we don't have a July meeting.

Go to http://www.wildsteelheadcoalition.com to see the mission statement, etc., for the Wild Steelhead Coalition. If you can't make it up for a meeting, maybe Justin can give you the full report. Make sure he brings lots of hooks and swivels!!

Fish on...

Todd.

Jerry Who exactly was I stereotyping? I was stereotyping anglers who fish for hatchery chinook in Puget Sound.. I would also say it was not a negative stereotype simply that the motivation of chinook fishermen in my experience is much different than say steelhead fishermen. In fact based on my observations of chinook fishermen in general (fall chinook anyway) i'd say that at least 50% never fish except when there are a lot of fish around that they can kill. That makes them meathunters. There is nothing wrong with that. However I do not want to sacrifice our wild fish so that people can harvest hatchery fish. That is exactly what we are doing!!

Robert Allen -
I'm sure that we both agree that: 1)recovery of wild fish is dependent on placing their needs first and 2) there is much that needs to be addressed in the hatchey arena and the interaction of hatchery fish with wild fish.

However I have to disagree that eliminating hatchery programs is the sure way to recovery. There at less two examples in Puget Sound where hatchery steelhead programs have been eliminated and a decade ort more later the wild fish numbers are no better; The Nisqually and Cedar. The first step towards successful recovery of wild stocks is having healthy rivers. Without productive habitats no fish have a chance. Destroyed habitat is not easily restored with recovery times measured in life-times or more.

There has been much bantering about lately regarding the best science. However the refutable science is that salmonids need water!!

Tight lines
Smalma

Thanks for the spelling correction Jerry! Uhh RA3 I fish for chinook when I'm fishing for chinook, I also fish for steelhead when I fish for steelhead, I also fish for coho when I fish for coho, I also fish for pinks when I fish for pinks, I also fish for chum when I fish for chum, I also...dang that could go on forever! Well one more...I also fish for all of the above at the same time whenever they are present and it is legal to do so. What does that make me...hey I'm thick skinned...call it like you see it? Please let it happen Jerry this once?
After that I really do promise to be a good little bird! Hey I'm serious !

I never said stereotyping was bad only pointing out everybody[damn, that was stereotyping] does it. IMHO, stereotyping [ or the use of absolutes like always, never,everybody, etc.] dilutes the facts and alienates those that don't fit the norm. I fish for the white kings on the Veder 3 or 4 times in the fall, rarely if ever bring home a fish----- yet I'm still a meathunter?

Getting back to the issue and Looking at things from another perspective we might note that:

"The Hatchery Reform Effort Moves Forward"

"The goal of recovering wild salmon stocks was given a boost recently when the Hatchery Reform Project released its first set of recommendations on how to reform hatchery operations in three regions.

The Hatchery Science Review Group - a diverse panel of independent scientists established to develop the scientific framework to guide hatchery reform programs - wrote the recommendations. They took a close look at tribal, state and federal hatchery operations over the past two years, using the best available science to recommend ways to restore wild salmon runs and produce fish for harvest. The recommendations, announced at a news conference in February, varied from area wide to specific recommendations for individual hatcheries.

The Hatchery Reform Project is a systematic, science-driven effort to address how hatcheries will be used to achieve their goals while helping to recover and conserve naturally spawning salmon populations and support sustainable fisheries.

"We are confident that by working together we can achieve our goal of returning wild salmon stocks to abundance," said Billy Frank Jr., NWIFC chairman. "Reforming hatchery practices is another step on the road to wild salmon recovery."

But, no matter how well a hatchery is run, it will never replace the real thing. "It's only one part of a big puzzle. Hatcheries do not take the place of habitat. They never have, never will. We need salmon coming back to our rivers and streams," said Frank.

Hatcheries will no longer be judged on the basis of how many fish they produce, said Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife Director Jeff Koenings. Instead, they will be judged on the basis of how many adults return to a river system.

In locations where wild salmon stocks are depressed, their recovery can get a "jump start" from a hatchery that spawns the wild adults to boost a new generation of fish, Koenings said.

"The Hatchery Reform Project is the first time anyone has taken a big-picture, systematic look at the Puget Sound and coastal hatcheries," said Rep. Norm Dicks, who shepherded funding for the project through Congress.

"By moving ahead with these reforms, the states and tribes will not only go beyond the Endangered Species Act's requirements to minimize hatchery impacts, they intend to help us bring back the wild salmon," said Sen. Patty Murray.

Congress first funded Hatchery Reform in 2000 due to concerns - following the ESA listings of several local salmon stocks - that hatcheries were having a detrimental effect on salmon runs.

After looking at the hatcheries on the Strait of Juan de Fuca, South Sound and the Stillaguamish/Snohomish watersheds, the review group will visit three more regions starting this year. "Only a comprehensive plan can balance all the related, complex interests, such as tribal treaty rights, sports fishing and conservation," said Dicks

In addition to Hatchery Genetic Management Plans being developed for each tribal facility, projects are also being funded through the Hatchery Reform Project to improve how hatcheries perform. Nineteen tribal hatchery reform projects were funded this year."

From: The Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission Newsletter - winter 2001/2002

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

I can only discuss to this issue as a layman but it seems obvious that hatcheries have both positive and negative effects to consider in relationship to wild salmonids.

The current trend in science is to brand hatcheries as evil destroyers of wild fish but it seems to me that this is not altogether true.

Some contributors here have mentioned several undeniably negative effects that poorly managed hatchery operations might have on wild fish. It seems that the negative image they have constructed might be tempered with a look at some of the positive aspects of proper hatchery operations and the benign effects that they and the fish they contribute to the ecosystems provide.

Hatchery produced salmon, including the hybrid and inbred ones, can contribute positively to the numbers of wild fish and to the wild genepool.

This can be seen from the introduced Skamania hatchery stock that has established itself as a viable stock of wild steelhead in the upper South Fork of the Stillaguamish River where no historic stock of anadromous fish existed. This is just one of many instances where fish barriers have been removed to open new habitat now populated with wild fish of hatchery origin.

Another "benign to wild" contribution can be found in the heart of Metropolitan Seattle. The first sockeye were introduced to the Lake Washington drainage in 1917 with the planting of 19,700 fish of unknown origin. From 1935 through 1945, a total of almost 2,700,000 sockeye of mixed Grandy Creek origin was introduced to the Cedar River and Issaquah Creek. Another 576,000 Grandy Creek sockeye were introduced to Big Bear Creek in 1937 and 41,000 to the "main body" of the lake in 1942.

Another strain of sockeye from Cultus Lake, BC in Canada was introduce to North Creek (23,655) in 1944 and into Issaquah Creek (59,613 total) in 1950 and 1954. Another nearly 4,000,000 sockeye of unknown origin were planted from 1977 through 1979, mostly in the Cedar River.

The Grandy Creek strain was developed from a mix of Baker River, Quinault River, Yes Bay and Afognak Alaska hatchery strains creating in the Lake Washington ecosystem a most remarkable melting pot of introduced hatchery salmon. A melting pot of mostly wild sockeye with an achievable spawning escapement of 3,500,000 salmon.

Those are 3,000,000+ wild sockeye that would not exist without the benefit of hatcheries.

Another less local example of benefit is the multitude of wild and hatchery salmon and steelhead in the Great Lakes, an integral part in another ecological melting pot.

Might I mention the introduced hatchery trout living wild in Patagonia… the very fish that Michael Darland, a staunch supporter of WT, utilizes in the operation of his lucrative fly-in fly-fishing resort operations? These introduced hatchery fish provide entertainment for not only Mr. Darlands exclusive guests in his Argentine and Chilean operations but also for anglers of every description from around the world.

An unbiased fisheries biologist could certainly cite many further examples of the benefits to wild fish that hatcheries provide and even a layman can see that these benefits are best preserved through orderly hatchery reformation including the minimization of the less desirable characteristics.

It simply makes the most sense to maximize the benefits to wild salmon and mankind while minimizing the amount of harm.

Legal action to close hatcheries will not provide remedy that insures the proliferation of wild salmon and may in fact cause more harm than good. At best it draws attention and hopefully better funding for the issues surrounding salmon prosperity. At worst it absolutely wastes resources better deployed elsewhere or in the case of wholesale hatchery closures may cause the absolute extinction of some salmon stocks preserved only through hatchery efforts.

An excellent example of a waste of resources can be found in the previously mentioned litigation focused on the Tokul Creek Hatchery. The work WT has done to insure temporary passage above the barrier dam the past couple of years is commendable and will surely result in a permanent solution to the problem despite the lawsuit.

More importantly, The Snoqualamie chinook population is rebounding irrespective of the Tokul Creek deficit relegating provisions for passage there to icing on the cake.

Another quote from the NWIFC Newsletter - winter 2001/2002:

" For chinook salmon in the Snohomish system, including the Snohomish, Skykomish and Snoqualmie rivers, the co-managers were able to achieve the highest escapement since at least 1965. Pink and coho salmon escapements were also at record levels in the Snohomish, with pink totals reaching almost four times the previous high. “Escapement” is the number of fish allowed to spawn in order to sustain a run at a desired level.

Snohomish chinook escapement for 2001 was estimated to be 8,581 spawning fish. The average number through the 1960s and 1970s was approximately 5,000 fish per year. Between 1980 and 1998 this number was not reached even once. Since then, the escapement has exceeded 6,000 in 1998, 2000, and 2001. The recent upturn indicates that conservative harvest management plans are allowing large numbers of chinook to spawn to propagate the species."

These fish are not in dire need of urgent litigation for remedy. They are rebounding nicely despite the blocked passage at Tokul Creek. Although I don't have numbers I'm quite sure from personal observation that Skagit River chinook are also rebounding in population. Perhaps it was unwarranted emotional haste to even list some of these fish as threatened. Perhaps we and the wild fish would all be better served by concentrating our resources in areas which provide the maximum benefit in a studied post haste manner.

In my opinion Washington Trout is expecting to much. We cannot remove every dam, close every hatchery, eliminate all harvest and recreate a pristine habitat like what existed previous to the appearance of European immigrants. I must say that such a dream does deserve to be savored as one relishes the sweetness of honey.

Sadly, it seems that we cannot live on honey alone.

For more information about the hatchery reform efforts check the following link:

HATCHERY REFORM IN PUGET SOUND & COASTAL WASHINGTON

Sometimes the wheels of change turn slower than we would like but considering the management mistakes made in the past it seems prudent to do things right this time around.

Does anyone have any positive suggestions what we as a user group can do to facilitate the reform process?

Volunteer to help! Thanks Plunker!