They intend to sue to shut down 18 fish hatcheries. See their website for info, more later...

http://www.washingtontrout.org/hatchnoticepr.html

Hatcheries were not created to provide angling opportunity for recreational fishermen. They were created in an effort to produce more salmon for commercial harvest. If this suit is an effort to reduce the negative consequences of poor hatchery practices then I wish them all the luck in the world. Naturally spawning, robust, wild populations are what all sport fishermen should consider the goal of our long-term strategies. It should not be the shortsighted, greed induced dogma of increased hatchery dependence…

POS Clerk

I have understood it to be that hatcheries were created to offset a decline in wild/native fish and were not the cause of a decline in wild fish,but are a result of this unfortunate fact.

It seems to me that the actual cause(s)of the native fish's decline needs to be addressed before we eliminate sport fishing/hatcheries and not after.

Very simple.No hatchery fish,no sport season.

Kurt is a very smart individual, who has devoted his life to ressurecting our cold water species. I may not agree with everything, but our hatchery system is based on bad modeling and old science. The WDFW and NMFS both are primary sources of bad management. Our local Chinook hatchery on the Dungeness is doing all the things that Kurt alleges in his statement. We have to start somewhere, and why not with the governmental agencies that have a mandate to protect the species! Bad government, no donut!

Airplanes were not created to crash buildings or smuggle drugs but they are used for such. Hatcheries are what we as fisherman depend on to help keep runs of fish in the river for us to catch. If there were no clipped steelies we'd take wild ones home and that would be less wild fish in the river. Call it esp (or just common sense) but the big wigs that have a "say" in what goes on in the fishing industry are going to make fishing all but impossible to do. Look at that river in oregon where can't hardly breathe let alone fish. The outdoor sport is being taken right out from under our NOSES!

Glowball,

I am curious. Which river in Oregon are you refering to in your post?

Washington Trout must be a sub-branch of PETA.

We've talked about the 4-H's with respect to salmonid recovery and certainly some hatchery practices need to be looked at and re-evaluated but to just close them and expect that to be positive step in fish conservation is a bit extreme. Why be so lazy. Hatchery closing would be easy. Hachery reform might take more work but there are a lot of you "fish rocket scientists" out there, so fix the problems.

Remember, no marked fish, no recreational fishing.

If this litigation happy group would have their way they would have all of us move back to Nebraska and let the fish recover themselves. I wish it were that easy. Unfortunately I want to stay and I want to fish.

Selective fisheries targeting marked fish along with hatchery reform and continued efforts aimed at the other 3-H's makes more sense to me.

Washington Trout are a bunch of left wing liberal purist flyfishing mother****ers who don't give a **** about anyone else's views or thoughts. They are very selfish and were the type of kids that when growing up did not share there toys with any one else, and if they had to would run off to Mommy and Cry like a bunch of pussies that they are. They have to realize that they have to share the fish with everyone, so deal with it you Pansies !!!!!
Peace Superfly

I think the two major factors that have caused our wild fish numbers to decline are #1 hatchery's #2 over harvest. #2 has been caused by #1. And #1 has done alot more damage than just causing #2.

I say shut em down if it will help the wild ones come back.

Too many people are only concerned about loosing oportunity. Whenever we we have issues like closeing hatchery's or having bait bans people come uncorked.

The problem with our society is that too many people are only concerned about what they feel they should have or be entitled to, and that dosent stop with fisherman.

People are worried that closing a hatchery may stop them from being able to to kill some hatchery fish or stop them from fishing at all. People are worried that a bait ban on certian rivers might cause them to catch fewer fish or make them start fishing a new way. People dont care that these measures are in best intrest of the fish they only care about loosing oportunity.

There are only a few that really give a S##T, and are willing to make sacrifices to ensure the wild ones live on.

And thats all I have to say about that.

Anyone who believes that shutting down all the hatcheries is going to bring back the wild fish is fooling themselves. There are so many factors that have led to the decline of naturally spawning fish (is there a real "wild" fish left????) that closing hatcheries will do little or no good on their own.
The biggest single effect closing hatcheries would have would be to shut down the nontreaty commercial fishing fleet and the closing of recreation fisheries as we now know them. This would result in leaving what naturally spawning fish are left in the hands of the state and the tribes and we all know how well these two groups do when left to themselves.

Hatchery practices could be improved (capturing non hatchery fish each year for your brood stock) and be a very useful in the recovery of our resourse. I just hope "Washington no trout" doesn't screw the rest of us in the process.

Hey 'Fly,

So, why don't you tell us how you REALLY feel about Washington Trout.

p.s. Hopefully not too many of their members use Vision tackle or Allstar rods... :p

A source from within WDFW informed me that WT is after the facility at Tokul Creek which means the elimination of between 25-40% of the steelhead production. Talk about self-destruction of fishing opportunity for a Duvall based group.

Beezer

There have been so many complaints from everyone about the way our fisheries are managed/mismanaged and so much blame slung all over about how we got into a salmon crisis! At least Washington Trout is trying to do something and not just living with the status quo. Those who mudsling at Washington Trout should ask themselves what they're doing to help solve our fish problems and not just sit at their PC and whine. They should also ask themselves if they are willing to give up some of their personal fishing to ensure the fish we claim to love so much can thrive for future generations. Do you really think we can continue to expand as a society, fish for food in all the locations we want to, and still save the fish? Get Real!

To those of you who don't believe we can recover wild fish, look at what's happened on Oregon's Metolius River. 5 years after discontinuing hatchery rainbow stocking, wild rainbow redd counts have increased by a factor of five!!!! That's 5 times as many wild fish in 5 years (and they're resident trout, so you can't credit ocean conditions for the recovery). This, after ODFW documented decreased genetic resistance to disease in the wild trout that live in the stretch formerly stocked vs. those fish separated by waterfalls. If the fish have good habitat, adequate water flows and minimal interference from inbred hatchery fish, they will recover.

Washington Trout, The Native Fish Society, Trout Unlimited, etc. are all looking forward toward future with healthy rivers and lots of fish. The status quo, including most hatchery production is damning our rivers' future.

Wild Chrome
take a look at the upper Kalama. Since they stopped allowing hatchery steelhead above the Kalama falls hatchery the wild steelhead numbers are rebounding
when WDFW stopped planting skamanias in the Wind river the wild fish there also rebounded by a factor of 10+ in 4 years.

On the contrary in the Washougal during the 1960's with habitat in recovery wild steelhead numbers plumeted from 1500 to sometimes less than 100. This decline happened at the exact time the Skamania hatchery came online

South Fork toutle... after 1980 st helens eruption it was the only river in SW Washington meeitng it's escapment goals. then they started planting Skamania summer runs and the wild run absolutely tanked...

There is a direct and clear correlation between the number of hatchrey fish planted and decline of wild salmonids..

THE ELIMINATION OF HATCHERY FISH IS THE SUREST WAY TO INCREASE THE NUMBERT OF WILD FISH!!! THE FASTEST WAY TO DESTROY A WILD RUN IS TO PLANT HATCHERY FISH!!!!!

clearly seen and widely documented... it's that simple..

what is slefish is to keep hatchreies open just so you can go kill a few. That dose not promote good fishing...

Countless Alaska rivers were at one time decimated by by comercial exploits. I know at one time 1930's or 40's the Karluk river on the west side of Kodiak Island had a canery at the mouth and a weir was built to block off the river and take all of the fish for the canery. Well to make a long story short for a few years they took all the fish untill there were none left then they had to shut down the canery. Knowone knows how many fish there were before the canery but it was thought the Karluk had the most in Alaska, it bosted large runs of Sockey first and second run, odd year pinks, large kings and coho as well as steelhead. After that there were no hatcherys and gues what happened. Well it is a river the size of the Dungeness and ill tell ya that it gets near 700,000 first run sockey, over 300,000 second run sockey, an avarage of 10,000 kings over 1,000,000 pinks, over 20,000 coho and around 6,000 steelhead a year. This is after the river was vacumed of near all fish during the first half of the 1900's and with no human intervention it braught itself back. I dont know haw long it took but I know it has been a good fishery for a long time. What do you think would have happened if it had a hatchery put there to help bring the fish back?

Wild Chrome, Robert Allen 3, and Rich G;

your true colors are showing again! No question, it's your way or no way! We have had many debates on this board about our different opinions, and to the most part, it's always been a draw.

But I for one, think that you guys have gone over-board with you own basis opinion about wild fish. Give us all a break! You guys have your opinion, and others have theirs. That does not make you, or them, right! The times have changed, and no matter what you want to do to bring back the "wild fish", they will never be able to reach that same level that you guys want them too again. Hatcheries do have their places, and to contend otherwise reflects a one sided vision of how we got to where we are now.

Don't want to get you guys too riled up (but I know you will), but how else are fishermen, that love to harvest, ever going to have the opportunity again with your way of thinking? We will never be able to turn the clock back, so what's wrong with enjoying the opportunity to catch and harvest fish now? You know, it's kind of like the gasoline engine, it's here now, but it will move on to some other type of energy in the near future. So what's wrong with some hatcheries remaining open to fill the need of the majority?

Human population is continuing to increase, and so must the need to increase catchable fish, be it hatchery, or be it the combination of both. Real people need real resolutions to solve real problems. We need to meet both of the needs. Let's start working together, instead of beating up everyone who believes that hatcheries are a necessary tool to supply fish for sport harvest. You may believe that wild fish are the only way to go, while others believe that hatchery fish are a must! Isn't it time that this board learns how to deal with both?

Cowlitzfisherman
Is the taste of the bait worth the sting of the hook????

I must say that I am surprised at some of the anti hatchery replies to this question.Perhaps I shouldent be having read the stuff on this BB for about a year but nevertheless I am.
While there are some downsides to hatchery production ;but the time to close hatcheries is after there is a clear rebound of natural stocks and after the root cause problems have been dealt with.Neither of these prerequisites have been met.
As I see the hatchery downsides the key items are loss of genepool and introduction of disease.
Both of these can be dealt with through sound science and good management.
Fisheries managers have always been against hatchery programs and seek to kill them when opportunity presents itself.The perfect vehicle is loss of financial resources. But why would you trust the judgement of the very people who cause the problem in the first place by allowing to great a commercial catch,and poorly estimating the capacity of the resource.
The time to close hatcheries is after the rebound of native fish and after we have sound management.

Cowlitzfisherman

you are certainly entitled to your opinion.. Hatcheries do have their place it seems that here in Washington hatcheries have their place in every single salmon/steelhead river!!! every single damn one of them!!!!!!!!!!! I know of no rivers salmon/steelhead rivers in our state that are not planted with hatchery fish.. NOT ONE!!!!! There may be one but I don't know about it.

I frankly am sick to death of people talking about the need for harvest opportunity.. Seems to me that opportunities for harvest have done nothing but increase the last 3 years!! What I object to is that WDFW is doing absolutely nothing not one damn thing to save wild salmon and steelhead.. if they refuse to obey the federal law then I say to hell with them and their hatcheries...

My colors have been showing for a long time . I have never hid them from anyone. In fact i am damn proud of them.. Because what I believe is based on the best available science. Wild fish have a proven record of recovering very quickly when hatchery plants are eliminated. You cannot deny that! Wild runs also have a history of going in the tank when hatchery fish are added.. That also you cannot deny.. If we were to do one thing to save our wild fish the single best thing we could do would be to shut down hatcheries!!!!!

Anyone who has a problem with that has a problem with science!

Me too Im sick of harvest ,harvest, harvest!!!!!!!
If harvest is all people care about than our wild fish are truely doomed.

Just food for thought. For the most part hatcherys arnt even here for sport harvest instead for tribes and comercials. If for only sport harvest there would be no such thing as a hatchery.

If it wasnt for greed in the first place on all sides there would be no reason for hatcherys.

Another thing, I know of many small coastal streams that have had all the same problems as everywhere else accept hatcherys. All the other problems such as logging, habitat degration, polution. But yet they have quite robust wild fish runs accept for a component of a steelhead run in one small river where hatchery steelhead have been introduced. The component of wild steelhead that came at the same time as the hatchery fish have now almost disapeared.

How many fish do you harvest oriented anglers need anyways to sustain your need to kill and eat fish.

I myself combineing salmon, steelhead, trout and all species of bottom fish on avarage kill maybe 20 to 25 fish a year tops. My family of 3 eats fish about once a week and eat fish I catch about 95% of the time.

RIGHT ON RICH!!!!

I wouldn't mind seeing some state salmon hatcheries close down....and they can start with
the one in Issaquah!!! I'am sick and tired of watching our tax dollars flushed down the drink
every year on hatcheries that have and will always
have poor water quality and continue to put weak fish into the system.

Cigar

Cowlitz,
So glad to see your posts again! (Really!) I think you can state the case for hatcheries as well as anyone and I sometimes have to actually think about the "Big Picture" before I can respond to your ideas. To me, however, the big picture includes the condition of our rivers and fish populations decades from now, when we will be judged on our actions or inaction. You mentioned filling the need of the majority. The majority of people in the northwest 1) don't fish, 2) want their tax revenues spent on education, transportation, and social services, and 3) think a salmon is a fish that returns to the place it was born to spawn and die. They actually derive inspiration from that!

If you still think the "majority" need fish for harvest, how about the financial practicality of sustaining the current level of harvest into the next century? How many more fishermen will there be in 2102? 4 times as many? 5? Are we 21st century anglers actually the minority? Is each 22nd century angler going to be entitled to 30 salmon/year? Who is going to pay for maybe 5 times the hatchery production we have now? The expense of running hatcheries is already accelerating at a rate that is forcing closures in Washington and Oregon. Lastly, how many more wild fish stocks will disappear to ensure the future fishermen get to tag several fish per month?

I anxiously await your reply!

"If we were to do one thing to save our wild fish the single best thing we could do would be to shut down hatcheries!!!!! Anyone who has a problem with that has a problem with science!"

I just love the balanced, scientific and open-minded view that Rob Allen and his nutso wild fish fanatics have. Unbelievable!

Some of you guys need to get down off your moral superiorty soapbox.

Rich,you kill and eat more fish than I do.i have to ask you,since you seem to catch alot of fish, what do you do with the hatchery fish that you don't eat?Do you release them unharmed or what?

I eat my share of fish,but my freezer is full of salmon from the salt.I have another trip,for chinook next week.I probably won't bonk any steelhead I catch this year.I fish for sport,not meat.

I do not want to lose my sport in an effort that I do not believe will have any positive effect on wild stocks.Remove dams and nets,restoring habitat and nutrients to the river will help.killing off the sportfishing interest won't.

I've kept my distance from this discussion but I have decided to enter the fracus.

I must say that I agree with Rich...to me fishing is so much more about catching and killing fish and to me wild fish are so much more prized as not only a quarry but as an organism and it is OUR duty to fight for their long term survival. If you do not agree, sell your driftboat or sled, your steelhead and salmon rods and take up trout fishing at the local lowland lake.

Is Washington Trout's call for the closing of so many hatcheries truly necassary??...probally not. We all know there are succesful hatcheries and unsuccesful hatcheries (succesful being measured in benefits to sportsmen with as little if any detriment to wild fish populations). Succes is usually determined by many factors and yet at sometimes, success can come from the fact that a hatchery is isolated from wild fish populations.

Leadslinger-
You totally contradict yourself...at one point you tell Rich that he eats more fish then yourself but in the next paragraph you state you have a freezer full of salmon caught from Puget Sound. Last time I checked, Puget Sound did NOT have selective fisheries and some of those fish could be wild...how does that make you any better then Rich???? I would rather you kill a hatchery steelhead then a wild salmon...

...I still dont get how you can you fish for sport when prior you state you have a freezer full of salmon?? Sure do hope those fish can eaten up and not thrown away!!

Rich G -
Welcome back glad to see you posting again!

However, your recent post illustrates clearly why hatchery fish are needed in today's society. On the surface taking 2 fish a month doesn't seem excessive but consider the following: there are easily 400,000 anglers in the state (most likely over 1/2 million). At 25 fish per angler per year that would be 10,000,000 fish a year! Doubt that even Washngton's hatchery program can support that kind of consumptive recreation; the wild resource certainly can not. It seems to me that the first step in reducing the spiralling increase of hatchery production is to look at how the fish are allocated. This is even more critical if we want to intelligently reduce or change production levels.

Are there problems with the exist hatchery program? -certainly.
Are changes needed? - of course.
Do we need to eliminate all hatchery fish? - I'm not so sure.

This knee jerk reaction of eliminating all hatchery fish because of the problems (even wide spread problems) with fish is not neccessarily the most productive approach. Clearly urban sprawl, water issues, aggressive land management, etc have all contributed greatly to the current state of our wild fish resources. Should we stop all building, stop using water or electric, stop using wood products - off course not. What is needed is some careful thought and examination of all of the issues and starting down a more balanced path. In the hatchery arena that may mean examining the causes of the detrimental impacts on the wild fish by hatcheries and setting about reducing those impacts. Actions depending on the situation may mean elimination of some programs, downsizing others, changing brood stocks, planting strategies, etc. The specifics are for a later discussion. Once we as a group come to grips with the need for change we have made the first and hardest step.

Remember it took nealry 150 years to bring us to this state and it unlikely that there are any easy fixes. Likely it will mean careful consideration followed by changes in a broad spectrum of the 4 Hs. I would much prefer to see a more balanced in this rebuilding effort. Clearly adjustments in the hatchery and harvest arena is needed but the habitat arena can not continued to ignored. I've seem very little meaningful changes in land management issues - at best all that is being proposed is slowing down the destruction of key fish habitat.

I'm more than willing to do more than my fair share (reducing my fishing impacts!) but any fish recovery success is dependent on the rest of society willingness to meet me part way. Don't see that happening.

My 2 cents
Tight lines
Smalma

I Agree lets get rid of all the hatcherys, after all, native fish are more able to survive the cycle of life than weak hatchery stocks. But only after we remove the obstacles that made it necesary to have hatcherys in the first place. Lets see First the dams would have to go then the nets all of them Then clearcut logging Then We would have to have a drawing to see who could fish what year as there are way to many fisherman nowadays. No problem perfect solution!
Ramprat

I did not say Puget Sound.I said the salt.Westport.Next week Canada.It doesn't take many large fish to fill a freezer.Don't you know?

You actually want to speculate that these fish are wild?You have no idea.No clue.

Yes,I fish for sport,not meat.That is why I release fish that I don't eat,yet still continue to fish.

I did not attack Rich,as you tried with me.I refuted his agrument about harvest,harveat,harvest being the motive for my opposition to closing down the hatcheries.

I did not lie or contradict myself.Rich stated a figure on what he kept.it is more than what I will keep.

I enjoy an argument and will not give up the moral highground to an opposing viewpoint if it is not warranted.Don't take it personal.

In reading the posts it seems clear that some of us are like wild steelhead and others are like hatchery fish.

Kudos to RA3, Rich G. etc.

some of us may indeed be genetically superior

Both sides have made some good points, so how about this.

1. Designate some rivers as hatchery only rivers to satisfy the folks who would want to catch an kill a few fish for home. These would be rivers with the lowest chance of recovery of the wild runs based on scientific factors. Stock the holy hell out of them, producing a sporting opportunity for the masses. Choose these rivers so that each region has at least two or three.

2. Close a select number of rivers to all fishing, including negotiated netting moratoriums with the tribes that use those rivers, for 2 complete generation cycles, meaning 8 years. These rivers would have the best chance of recovery for their wild runs.

3. Buy back the commercial gillnetter licenses through higher sport license fees.

4. Don't buy fish in the store. I haven't for years. I have bought some eggs in the past that were gillnet caught, but I doubt I will again. I have since learned to fish other methods that don't require eggs. I will still use eggs, but just eggs from hatchery fish that I catch.

5. Limit some rivers as catch and release only, no bait, to serve as somewhat of a control to gauge how the "no fishing" rivers are rebounding.

Just a thought.

United we stand, divided we fall.

Andy

The problem is 100% the fault of tribal and non tribal commericals. Hatcheries were created AFTER the wild runs were decimated. Get the nets out of the rivers and ocean and you'll have more wild fish.

Commerical harvest is what has ruined the fishing in this state and on the entire west coast. Most likely, all ocean fishing deeper than 150 feet will be closed from the border with Mexico through Alaska because the bottom fish are in such bad shape thanks to the draggers. No hatcheries there, just commerical rape.

Hey 4 Salt, those guys are such purist they would never lower themselves to using Allstar rods or vision hooks, all of you that support this group may as well get the **** off of this board because the reason hatcheries were started was to supplement the runs for harvest by all user groups.
I am all for wild fish, but how many pure wild fish runs actually still exsist, very few, you guys best pull your heads out of your asses and wake up, there is a hundred times more people using the resorce then the wild element can support, even in the best conditions. So all of you purist and washington trout ***s best pack up your toys and go somewhere else and play!!!!
Peace Superfly

Sure glad your not a moderator 'Fly!! This is just a discussion of what people believe, Some with science[on either side], some with just "I want", on either side. The answer will lie somewhere in between. There WILL be hatchery reform driven by the needs of wild fish, NOT by the wants of sportfishers. We can be part of the solution or just b!tch because while we were fighting each other some group helps formulate a management policy that helps neither the wild fish nor the sport fisher. There will have to be some comprimises on all sides to accomplish some changes, and changes WILL occur, with or without[my guess] the sportfishers imput.

Personaly hatchery fish do not satisfy my fishing wants.The best satisfaction comes from sneeking into a canyon on a section of a river not frequented by others and finding a wild fish or two.This is just me and I try hard not to put my self on moral ground it is just what I seek when I go fishing.

I have become intimate with some of our native stocks of salmon and w/s steelhead out here on the hood canal.They need to be shut down from sport fishing.Those waters are some of the most pristine in the state as far as logging,polution goes,and the fish still can not make a recovery!?Why are they even open?Because the state has created an artificial fishery based on winter steel head plants.

That is my big problem with the hatcheries.I see them more as a tool to cover a bunch of political based science that does not work.I believe the state is more into covering there asses and defending themselves then they are into managing our fisheries.I do know,based on there actions,that they could care less about the fish.

I would have to agree that the majority of our watersheds have much bigger problems than the hatcheries that need to be addressed.Actually I think that there are MANY small things that combined show just how delicate the relationship betweeen mother nature and our androminous runs are.Replacing culverts is not going to solve it,we need less dirt roads,way bigger buffers along the rivers etc,comeercial liscense bought buy the tax payer,seal, sea lion population controls etc..

I got to watch two poachers go into a favorite section of the skoke this year and litterally wipe out a strain of resident spawning fish.This was done by two guys and a bucket of worms.This shows me that our wild stocks cannnot stand up to the preasure of our current population.We will always need a source of hatchery fish to satisfy the needs of the majority of our fishermen.I have no problem with this but unfortunately I believe that the hatcheries are more a tool to cover the truth.

got to go to work

This topic of saving the wild fish has been going on for as long as I've been fishing for steelhead and salmon (over 25 years)and the problems have not gotten any better. The resources are limited while the user groups have increased. This is true not only in Wash. but also British Columbia where to fish some of their premier rivers there is now a lottery to limit the numbers of fishermen and to my knowledge there aren't any hatchery suppliments to those rivers. It wasn't that far back that there was a world class fishery on the Quillalute system if I remember correctly the game dept estimated a native return of over 17,000 native steelhead the fishery today isn't close because netting is allowed and if the wild stocks in other rivers would recover they would also be subjected to the same practice. I doubt seriously if that practice will change in my lifetime because the tribes get the feds involved. To get rid of all the hatcheries is not the answer to saving the wild fish better hatchery management and practices will help using native brood stock. I know some of you have fished the Quinault. Thats what they do and it's a great fishery even though it's netted heavy. Before jumping on the band wagon to get rid of all the hatcheries at this point you should ponder on what you are willing to give up since you are at the bottom of this food chain, and if there are fishermen who quit fishing due to a lack of opportunity that is less support for the resourses. It is not a win for us or the fish.

Just for the record, Washington Trout is pushing for the closing of what, 10 hatcheries? How many are in the state?, the northwest? hundreds? thousands? I've heard nobody in this discussion say the aim should be to eliminate all hatcheries. I certainly don't think that's necessary or realistic. I do think some need to be eliminated and others overhauled. I like hatchery fish and would rather have one jerk my line than skunk. I also like eating them. I had my last piece of a 16 pound summer brat last night. Tasted great on the grill. I've got another thawing for tonight. That said, I believe wild fish are much better sportfish and that they are the only salmonids that truly belong in the river. I'd be happy with some planted rivers and some unplanted, and I think the fish would too.

On that subject, I've heard bio's from the forest service and PGE talk about that as a strategy to recover and maintain wild fish stocks. It is also being pushed by Trout Unlimited. Essentially they want to establish certain rivers as wild fish sanctuaries with no hatchery fish and C&R regs. Here in Oregon, the John Day and Sandy rivers are two candidates mentioned.

What if half our rivers were unplanted, C&R, and received the majority of habitat restoration? Would that help the wild fish survive and thrive without eliminating harvest?

Wild Chrome, But what about ME, what about what I want, What About Me?

Wild Chrome:

It's 18 state run hatcheries they are after. Follow this link to see the list of state hatcheries: http://www.wa.gov/wdfw/hat/facility.htm

The link includes McAllister which is now closed.

I can't claim to know the status of all these facilities but if I run through the complexes located in Puget Sound I can eliminate the trout hatcheries down to about 22 potential salmon hatcheries. A few of the 22 left are likely trout hatcheries. So at best it leaves 4 state salmon hatcheries open for all Puget Sound.

I have an idea lets point finger at everyone else.

Commercials blame the land owners.
Land owners blame the recreational fisherman.
Recreational fisherman blame the Native American.
The Native americans blame ocean conditions.
Blah Blah Blah.
When you point the finger at someone else you have a bunch pointing.

Don't take away our harvest oportunity it is our Right to whach fish and besides it isn't our fault. It is everyone else. Let's point fingers until we don't have any wild fish left. Is that a good option?

Face it Wild fish are hurting. Due to a lot of reasons. Ocean conditions, Hatcheries, harvest, land use, comercials, Native Americans. Guess what we don't control the oceans, floods, Native American fisheries(as much as we would like to we don't). Guess what we control harvest, hatcheries, land use, etc. Everyone has to give some. Hatcheries are have been proven to be bad for wild fish. We can control that.

Shame on Washington Trout to hold WDFW to Federal laws. How dare they look out for wild fish.

I am as far from a Left wing Liberal as you get and I agree with what they are doing. At least they are trying to help the situation. As for them being a group of fly fisherman. Please, if the hatcheries shut down there probably won't be any fishing to be had(which may not be a bad thing on the wild stocks for now) so how is that looking out for fisherman? That is looking out for fish. Someone has to do it.

Go Washington Trout.
JJ

You said it Jeff Johnson,

Knowone wants to make sacrifices to save the wild fish. Knowone cares about the wild fish they are only concerned with there right to harvest. And if hatchery fish didnt exist anymore they are affraid they might not get to fill the freezer anymore.

Im tired of hearing the lame excuses that the wild fish are gone anyways, and the majority want to harvest fish so hatcherys are a must. Im tired of hearing that it is all the Indians fault or comercials fault.

Jeff is right, we should commend trout unlimeted for being willing to sacrifice there oportunity to save the wild fish. But instead people that think differently just call them fly maggot pureists that are only looking out for their own interests and want to take away any body elses way of fishing. These alogations just arnt true.

To be completely honest I would much rather see our rivers littered with fly fisherman anyday rather than gear fisherman. I would feel much better having our wild fish's future in the hands of the fly maggots as they actually care about the fish, and their future. They dont just concern themselves with there right to take from the river or its productivity. They are concerned about the river and everything inside it, outside it and all factors that contribute to it. They do it for the expierience, beauty and majic not for their right to take. Thats the big difference for the most part that shows their sincerity. They arnt concerned about them having the ultimate fishing expierience they are concerned about the health of our rivers.

I say these things even though Im a gear fisherman.

It's funny how one side of the argument has to try so hard to paint the other as selfish meat fishermen to win the argument.I did not keep a single steelhead last year.I have bonked one this year.I have bonked two salmon this year and will probably harvest another 2-4.

Unless you can prove your point that the hatcheries exist at a substantial peril to wild fish,the character assasination is pointless.

Removing the sportfishing interest from the fisheries equation is probably not in the interest of native fish,either.Who else will push for the interests of our native stocks?

I'm like Leadslinger; I rarely bonk a fish. That's only because I don't care to eat frozen fish. That's just my preference. However, I LOVE to fish. I don't mind catch at release. But I can guarantee you this: if all the hatcheries close there will be NO fishing. Not catch and release, not harvest, nothing. Just hide and watch.

The best course of action would be exactly what has been suggested here: designate some wild rivers and some hatchery rivers. Other states have done it for trout for years.

Personally I'd like to see salmon and steelhead taken off the list of "food fish" and classified as a "sportfish." Just like deer and elk. If you want to eat one, you gotta catch one. Unless it's farm raised. But that will never happen in my lifetime, and I'm still relatively young.

Well said leadslinger. They are a nasty bunch arn't they.

I apologise if I came off as standoffish or arrogant...

It is a matter of values...what myself, RichG and others may value in our sportfishing may be something totally differnt then others, such as leadslinger.

But they are values that I am very passionaite about and will fight to protect!!!!!

Secondly, I have seen the science and the science proves that in certain instances, hatchery salmonids will have a severe & detremintal (sp?) impact on other wild salmonids.

Religious zealots do tend to read and see only what supports their beliefs that they are willing to fight for. :rolleyes: I wouldn't be all that confident in the science that supports either side or even those that had inconclusive results....and I too have seen the science.