In general I think the hatchery system is wrongheaded....the following is my best effort at describing why I feel the way I do. I hope my efforts here will be enough to convince some of you that the 'Hidden Agenda' of WT may be the only way to save wild fish populations in our state. At the very least I would hope you just take my opinion into consideration, I suppose that's all one can ever ask in these conversations. BTW, I've never found WT's 'agenda' to be 'hidden', all I need to know about them is contained in their mission statement, which coincidentally is pretty close to the mission statements of Wyoming Trout, Colorado Trout, Montana Trout, Idaho Trout, Oregon Trout, California Trout etc, etc...

This is a layman's explanation, based on opinion, emotion and what I believe to be facts. Hopefully Smalma or Salmo G. will let me know if I've got something completely wrong here....

Hatcheries should NEVER have been on our rivers in the first place. There were no considerations made at the time for how these hatcheries would affect wild fish populations in their respective watersheds. Now that wild fish populations are in jeapordy throughout Puget Sound and even Washington state as a whole, WDFW asks that someone prove there is an impact before the hatcheries are removed? I hope I've got it wrong because that sounds like incredibly backward thinking to me.

In my opinion hatcheries need to justify their own existence. The burden of proof should lie with the IMPACTER not the IMPACTED. In that light I would like to see each and every hatchery in our state closed until they can prove:

1) There are no wild fish left in their respective watersheds, or that the wild populations that do exist are considered beyond the ability to recover ...in this case a I think a hatchery is a good idea...

or

2) They have no significant impact on wild fish populations. That's right, here is where the burden of proof I spoke of above comes into play. The health and vitality of a species native to our rivers is at stake...those that wipe their butts with the spotted owl will take issue with this of course because it puts the welfare of an animal above the welfare of an economy, which affects people. In my opinion this is the single most important fulcrum dividing sportsfishermen. Fish first or fishing first?

For me, there is no question. If the hatchery system were to be enacted today they would have to prove these things anyway. That they didn't have to at their inception can be fixed by making them do it now.

The thing that most people on the other side of this argument fail to see is that I am willing to put my rod away for good if it means even just a chance at recovery for wild fish populations. Already I have taken as many steps as I possibly can to minimize my personal impact, limiting my fishing to rivers whose native populations are relatively healthy, I've educated myself as to the proper way to handle fish for release, I don't use bait during months where heavy smolt populations are present...the list goes on...I'm sure there is more I can do, maybe someday I will be as committed to this idea as WT.

Don't for a minute think I am foolish enough to think that this is an end all solution. With hatcheries gone it would create quite a dilemma for commercial fishermen and the tribes. As far as commercial fishing, at least in Puget Sound goes, no sport fishery = no commercial fishery period, IMO.

The tribes are a different issue entirely. I have no answer here...seems like one for the litigators. The first thought that comes to mind is that if you have a casino generating mega-bucks for the people of your reservation or tribe, how on earth can you justify the need to harvest fish from the river? Don't get me wrong, no one would cheer louder than I if the Quillayutes decided tomorrow that they were going to revert to the fishing methods of their ancestors....whatever those are. Preserving culture, thumbs up...fishing native stocks into exinction, thumbs down. The rub though is that not all of the different tribes have casinos, the biggest source of income for the Hoh tribe for example is wild salmon and steelhead. Who am I or anyone else for that matter to take that away from them?

I never claimed to have the answers. It cracks me up when people do, its usually a crystal clear indication that they are to be ignored. All I have is my opinion, thankfully I've learned over the years that if hold onto that too tightly it will melt away in my hands, leaving me with nothing.

Even though we have divergent opinions about the necessity of hatcheries I hope that either Smalma or Salmo will take the time to share their ideas about why I am wrong, or what misinterpretations of fact I may be incorporating into my logic. If nothing else your excellent counter-points always leave me re-examining my positions, which IMO is the only to way to continue to learn and evolve.

If you've made it this far....thank you.

h2o

Thanks for stating your beliefs in a concise manner.

Hatcheries are a mitigation or remedy for wrongs done to our fisheries by numerous perpetrators. This may be a bandaid for sure but a mitigation nontheless.

The tribes are enjoying a pretty liberal interpretation of the treaties of 1855 in this state and other treaties across the country. No question the white eyes screwed them over pretty bad. The treaties are federal and cannot be modified here locally. We ruined the wild runs that they were given "in kind" access to 150 years ago so today we mitigate those old promises with hatcheries and many other rights for the tribes. Casinoes are part of the sovereign nation exemption and there really isn't much we can do about it without federal decisions to abbrogate the treaties. That doesn't seem likely in this political climate.

Even Alaska's vast and pristine lands are not producing the salmon of the glory days. I am really not sure if hatcheries are a viable solution but I think we need to consider the effects to all our citizens and not just the fishermen. That unfortunately includes the villains who helped cause the decline of our salmon. The farmers, the loggers, the developers, commercial nets, dams etc...

The US immigration policies have allowed a flood of people into this country further compounding an already overpopulated urban area here in Puget Sound.

So, in conclusion, to single out hatcheries as the villain is wrong. I think we can find a solution but not overnight or even in our life times..Even if we closed all the hatcheries and stopped fishing tomorrow we would not succeed. Stop all logging , breach all the dams and halt development statewide and still the wild fish runs would not be as robust as in 1855. I would say, however, that one good way to prevent the fish from disappearing would be to stop killing them. Until we figure it out we mitigate the damage.

Grandpa: I very often disagree with you. I usually don't bother to respond, but in this case we are close to agreement. We wiill not stop tribal abuses in this climate, and we seem to do too little, too late about the other commercial fishermen, and we all know the loggers own our politicians. But . . if hatcheries are killing our wild salmon. I said IF. IF we learn from solid science that current hatchery practices are killing wild salmon we must stop doing what we are doing. IF there is no way to modify hatchery practices short of closing them we must close them.

I am not convinced that closing the hatcheries is the answer, but if they are killing wild salmon that is not my idea of mitigation.

And while I think WT may be a bit extream, I beleive tha change sometimes will come only from extream measures. (i.e. civil right marches, womens suffarage protests, etc. etc.) Perhaps the outcome of the WT litigation will be to force the hatchery practices WT advocates.

We may not fully resrtore wild salmon in our lifetimes but we can damn sure wipe them out in the blink of an eye.

I think if hatcheries are a culprit in doing away with wild salmon I suspect they would not be near the top of the list of culprits. A politician running for governor said something to the affect that we in Washington are a rare breed in that we actually catch and kill our endangered species (wild salmon and steelhead). Think of it another way. What if we took the bald eagle, our national bird, and allowed hunting of the bird? We would allow capturing and killing of only , say, 1,000 of them this year...We would just raise a bunch of chicks in hatcheries to make up for it. Would it be the eagle hatchery that we blame for the extinction of the national bird or the hunter?

It was said by John Carlson in the 2000 governer's race. He said:

"What other endangered species can be legally trapped in large numbers while traveling to lay its eggs? It makes no sense to regulate salmon habitat on land while allowing thousands of yards of gill nets to be stretched across salmon habitat in the water."

I might add that I totally agree.

i think hatcheries are great. you get to put some pretty nice steelhead on your plate every year. would you rather people keep natives?

H20-
Very well said. Your views make sense on some points and are extreme on others. But that is the best anyone has explained why they are against hatcheries. And I even agree with some of it. I however, could not put my rod away. I could catch and release only, but not give it up completely. I'm pretty sure it would kill me. Anyway, great explaination, You should go after Ramone's job...

okieboy: Did you think this clearly before you became a team Mary Jane pro staffer?

Grandpa: I think you are 100% correct in your analogy of the eagles and the eagal hatchries. BUT, if the hatchery eagles were killing the last remaining remnants of the wild eagles, what whould you do about it?
No question we would not have needed hatcheries had we not built the dams, clearcut the forrests, paved the wetlands and then tried very hard to net every last salon in the sea and the rivers.
Problem is, we are still doing all that.

Grandpa,surecatch
The bald eagle analogy is oversimplified and idiotic unless you talking about dilluting the bald eagle gene pool with millions on genetically identical clones year after year for decades...then it makes sence. IMO it's not the hatcheries that are problematic its the hatchery practices. And who is willing to say that if we stopped harvesting salmon and herring for a cycle or two that they would not come back 10 fold. Look what happened when canada stopped taking 500,000 coho off the west side of Vancouver Island. We had the best coho returns in decades. Yes there are lots of reasons the runs have declined, but as sport fishers we need to stop pointing the finger and realize that any wild fish that lives to spawn helps the resource. There are plenty of Special interests blaming each other for this decline. Certianly they all contribute to the problem including WDFW hatcheries. IMO, like John Carlson, some of these problems are more easily addressed than others. GET THE #@%$ING NETS OUT OF THE RIVERS NOW! This would be the lowest cost to our society and have the biggest positive impact on the resource. Wild puget sound kings are being gillnetted each year, and we, the taxpayers, are paying billions to try to save them.
End of Rant

H2o

I will also add that the hatcheries are a bandaid to cover the reel problem.They decieve the general public and allow fishing where there should be none.Even if the hatchery fish are not competing with our wild stocks they open the door for the sporty to go in and kill smolt accidently while trying to catch these hatchery fish.

I have said on this bourd for two years now, that I would rather put my steelhead gear away then see the wild fish go by the way side.That is not an easy decision.Alot of the people that are trying to discredit any body or orginization that stands against the hatcheries is afraid of losing there oportunity of harvest.

To fish or not to fish.Is that the reel question?

IMHO- no hatcheries= better survival for wild fish
better survival= more opportunities to be caught by commercial and or tribal fisheries
More developement=less habitat
less habitat=less wild fish
less wild fish=possibility of over exploitation by commercial
and or tribal interests
over exploitation-possible extinction
sport fisheries limited to only wild stocks-even less wild fish that can be taken by commercial and or tribal interests, adding to wild stock's fate
no hatcheries-no fish at all to be caught by anyone. Sell your gear before it's too late, and start doing whitewater float trips for all the bleeding heart liberals who are at the root of this and many other problems that confront us all

I haven't seen anyone discuss the more basic problem with hatcheries - they don't work that well. In recent years, the effective return from hatcheries has been documented to be as low as .5% of the plants, while wild stock fish in the same river get 3 to 5% returns. The hatchery fish have been bred to be raisable in hatcheries, but the same traits that make them successful in cement ponds chasing liver pellets don't allow them to thrive in the rivers.

This is not so much an indictment of hatcheries per se as it is about hatchery management, and the state of knowledge about fish raising. I suspect that the hatchery managers are trying to improve, but they, like everyone else, can only do so much in the budget situation we have today.

I don't hate hatcheries. I just think they are viewed by the angling public as being a magic solution that will keep the fish coming, when the data show that they are becoming less and less effective as the years go on.

Really, most all of you are right. There are river systems that are pretty much totally trashed with hydropower and habitat losses that mitigation hatcheries were designed to correct. These systems should have hatcheries. There are also systems that have no dams, relatively to very pristine headwaters (some in national parks) and relatively undeveloped estuaries. The best systems left are right in Bob's back yard. There are some in my backyard too. These should NOT have hatcheries on them as they are not necessary to mitigate anything and really don't, all that happens is that hatchery fish replace wild fish. All the other things (overfishing, habitat loss, etc.) are worse problems than most anything a hatchery can do, however, unless it is contribute to these problems by deceiving people into thinking overfishing and development is ok as the hatchery will take care of it.

So here's what I want - lots of hatcheries on dammed, screwed up systems, hatcheries designed to produce large, fat smolts that need little habitat on their way to the ocean - put a bunch of them in net pens at the mouth even for a couple weeks before release. These systems then are the places people go to catch fish to eat, commercial, sport, and tribe. Then take all the hatcheries off the rivers that have no dams and adequate spawning and rearing habitat. These have wild fish release fisheries on them, period - no commercial, no tribal, no trophy fish retention, nothing. Tribes on these river systems would have to agree to transfer their commercial operations to hatchery systems, or perhaps they could be given an exclusive area to guide C&R fishermen (this would work particularly well on the Quinault Reservation.) Ocean fishing, or fishing in other mixed stock areas like the Straits or the Sound is allowed, wild fish are released, and if there is to be any commercial or tribal trolling in the ocean, then the quota is based upon weak stock management. And for crissake, protect the habitat in undeveloped river and estuarine systems from development, and control pollution from point and non-point sources agressively.

This would work, guys

Isn't this about where we are?
What does Endangered Mean?

Where would one look for numbers of Wild Chinook for a given drainage?

It is highly unlikely that Hatcheries are responsible for the demise of Wild Chinook. If you had to quantify how much damage each factor had what would be the impact of hatcheries? 1%? 2%? Less? Far too many other factors have had much greater impact.

Leave the hatcheries in place. Work to make them better. Work to make habitat better.

...that and $2 will get you a cup of coffee

Right on Auntie!

We have a ton of problems facing our fish. That should be obvious by the fact that more then half of all distinct chinook species in the state are on the brink of extinction. Many are already extinct. And I do not for a minute buy that crap about how many animals have gone extinct in the past. We know what caused these extinctions. We did!

No one action will bring them back, be banning nets, tearing down hatcheries, feel good habitat projects or whatever. In fact I seriously doubt you ever again see healthy chinook runs in Puget Sound's urban streams.

I agree with a previous poster who said we should stuff our ruined rivers with salmon form hatcheries and keep them off the few remaining rivers. If that means some marginal rivers need to be closed, so be it. There would be added opportunity on the ones we stuff with fish.

The Vedder River in B.C. seems like a good model. They have huge hatchery plants of chinook, steelhead and coho. Thousands of urban anglers enjoy excellent fishing. Other nearby rivers have no hatcheries and are managed to keep their wild stock healthy.

surecatch

"The Vedder River in B.C. seems like a good model"

I am not familiar with how their hatchery practices work, how do they manage their hatcheries different then we do?

Lead Thrower:

In fact they do manage their hatcheries diffrently than we do, but I wasn't talking about that. I was simply saying they stuff badly degraded, urban rivers with hatchery fish and leave the others alone.

While I am by no means an expert on B.C. hatchery practices, I know they use rod and reel caught wild streelhead for most of their broodstock and that they hold them for up to four months until they are ripe for spawning.
The Vedder, which is about the size of the Nisqually gets 10,000 steelhead returning in a good year. They get 40,000 fall chinook.

Stlhdh2o,

Your opinion is fine, but you asked for a response, so . . .

This is complex. If it were simple, I think even our inept government might have solved things by now. We're a plurality of people with a plurality of interests, and many of our nearest and dearest interests conflict with one another - sometimes to the point of mutual exclusivity.

The hatchery system exists for two reasons: 1) because fish can be cultured, you can bet someone would decide to do it; 2) hatcheries seemed like a good bet to offset over-fishing. Habitat was still quite pristine on the west coast when hatchery operations commenced. Now we have hundreds of hatcheries . . . in Washington State alone.

It isn't necessary to close every hatchery until it proves itself as not harmful to listed species. That sounds like a simple action, but it would actually be quite complicated. I'll not go into that here. Wherever there are ESA listed fish, hatchery operations must obtain a section 10 permit from NMFS (which is what WDFW hadn't yet done, causing WT to sue them). In that permit, NMFS imposes a series of conditions on the operations of hatcheries, either individually, or collectively for an area or region - like Puget Sound. An interesting note is that 5 of the Puget Sound hatcheries have chinook restoration/recovery as their primary or sole purpose. Closing them would be a serious setback, perhaps ensuring the extinction of some local stocks.

I think a useful evaluation of our state's hatcheries would be an objective audit - if such a thing could exist.

For example, think about how many hatcheries come into existence. A state senator or representative decides a fish hatchery in his or her district (usually at the urging of some special interest) would be a good political trophy. The hatchery might get located on a river that has/had a good wild run. However, the increase in runsize from the addition of hatchery fish causes WDFW to authorize an increased harvest and increased harvest rate to prevent too many excess hatchery fish returning to the hatchery rack. (Excess rack return is always bad political news. The commercial interests complain to their legislator that constituents are missing out on harvesting state-owned salmon. So the legislator directs WDFW (how makes a separate good story) to "improve" management. So higher harvest reduce the hatchery surplus but also over-harvest the wild run, putting it into a spiral toward oblivion. This gets "mitigated" by releasing hatchery surplus fry into the nearly empty natural habitat to try to retain both natural and hatchery production. It usually doesn't work very well, and the river is left mainly with a hatchery population.

Some hatcheries produce fish mainly for a commercial fishery that has become an historical anachronism. Yet it goes on. The lower Columbia River coho fishery fits that catagory in my opinion. Massive releases of hatchery coho and subsequent gillnet fishing particularly have all but extirpated wild coho populations in the Columbia. Yet it goes on. Why? BTW, all those hatchery coho are a major contributor to the Columbia chum salmon being endangered as well.

Not all hatcheries are equal in their performance. Some get perpetually low smolt to recruit survival. They cannot be closed; Mr. Legislator mentioned above won't stand for it because his constituents won't stand for it. Some hatcheries are plagued by water quality problems and fish disease. They might not be economically viable, but there is no standard for economic viability of hatcheries. The range is almost rediculous. I think hatcheries produce adult salmon and steelhead and costs varying from 1 or $2 to $3,000 (admittedly the high end is occupied by Columbia/Snake River mitigation hatcheries wherein most smolts never live to see Astoria.). Does every hatchery make sense, as in serving the public interest? Well, there is no singular definition of the public interest, so there is no simple answer.

Hatchery reform is essential to a balance of natural and artificial production. So far, I'm in the balance ballpark instead of the no-hatchery camp. We need hatcheries to help recover many wild populations (let's not get into the genetics here). And I don't think wild salmon and steelhead will provide significant harvest opportunities until the state's human population gets back down to 2.6 million or less, and it's presently 5.8 and climbing. I'd like to have some fish to eat, and I think that requires a economically viable and biologically effective hatchery program.

Sincerely,

Salmo g.

Cool...thanks for the response...I hope you don't think I'm calling you guys out at all, if I am wrong on this I want to understand why...I feel like you and Smalma are my best shots at doing just that.

"An interesting note is that 5 of the Puget Sound hatcheries have chinook restoration/recovery as their primary or sole purpose. Closing them would be a serious setback, perhaps ensuring the extinction of some local stocks."

I don't understand. The hatcheries in question are restoring wild fish runs with hatchery fish? If that is not the case why couldn't you close a hatchery but retain that portion of its function aimed at protecting/restoring wild fish?

I am hearing something in what you are saying that is not sitting well with me. Bad hatcheries are not closed due to political reasons? Political reasons are what's keeping WDFW from being audited by an objective party? Isn't that the general idea of the HSRG?

My true fear is that I will live in age where we had the opportunity to do something before it was too late and let 'political reasons' and special interests (see also: big money) get in the way of anyone being able to do anything about it.

...and someone wondered aloud why someone would sue over this issue.....?

If you have time to indulge me in one last question...

I am not familiar with the specifics of the Feather River study that's been bandied about so much lately but I do understand the implication of its findings. How much weight do you give to the idea that a high percentage of wild smolt are consumed as prey by hatchery released smolt?

If there is any weight to that idea whatsoever shouldn't immediate steps be taken to eliminate such an impact?

Thanks again...

Eric

I'm for hatcheries. They are the only reason that we still fish. But there are changes that need to be made. I would be happy to catch and release salmon and steelhead if the comercial guys would stop harvesting fish. Has any one ever stopped to think that hatcheries are where the WDFW and all other DFW in other states get their money? It mostly comes from people buying fishing licences to catch and KEEP planter trout in lakes. Getting rid of hatcheries would make the WDFW stop planting fish and loose thousands of dollars that are used to help salmon and steelhead. So I think that we need hatcheries not only to make salmon, but for the WDFW to get money that goes to salmon and steelhead conservation. Think about this the next time any of you want to make a post againsed hatcheris.

Jay

I'm for hatcheries. They are the only reason that we still fish. But there are changes that need to be made. I would be happy to catch and release salmon and steelhead if the comercial guys would stop harvesting fish. Has any one ever stopped to think that hatcheries are where the WDFW and all other DFW in other states get their money? It mostly comes from people buying fishing licences to catch and KEEP planter trout in lakes. Getting rid of hatcheries would make the WDFW stop planting fish and loose thousands of dollars that are used to help salmon and steelhead. So I think that we need hatcheries not only to make salmon, but for the WDFW to get money that goes to salmon and steelhead conservation. Think about this the next time any of you want to make a post againsed hatcheris.

Jay

I think I remember reading something he wrote about this previously when the topic first came up. Check the early threads on the WT lawsuit if you dont get a response.

elkrun

Fishingjunk15:

You may want to try checking your facts before posting erroneous information. In the current budget for WDFW total revenues are roughly 295M$. NONE of that comes from fishing and hunting licenses. Those monies ALL go into the state general fund. The Genral fund supplies roughly 93M$ to WDFW and a variety of other funding sources uncluding Federal grants makes up the rest.

I currently have a request into the WDFWE to find out whatare total license fee revenues , so we can see if we are overpaying or underpaying our share. I will report what I learn.

The facts are in front of all to see.

The roads and dams have been built.

The human population is not going to shrink.

The forests will continue to be cut.

The tribes and the commercials will not stop fishing.

The sport fishermen/women still want to fish.

Any river with a hatchery that has eggs from a different gene pool probably has no true wild fish left.

Hatcheries make for great fishing oportunities. Lets build more.

First, I agree with just about everything salmo said, including thoughts on balance. However, I would like to clear up one point.

WT does agree that in some instances, the risks of extinction can outweigh the risks posed by hatchery practices. I think there actually may be seven such programs in Puget Sound, that were specifically excluded from the suit. However, the public will now get an opportunity to review the hatchery-management plans for those programs, to evaluate whether they are being run in a way that actually may contribute to chinook recovery.

And I am a little troubled by a reliance on preserving and indeed expanding harvest opportunities as a principal justification for hatchery production, right after salmo did such an excellent job of articulating how negative hatchery and harvest impacts create and feed off pressures from each other. Harvest impacts would be best mitigated by better harvest management, not by imposing new and cumulative risks from poor hatchery practices, particularly with populations being managed for recovery. Washington Trout is working equally hard toward both better harvest and hatchery management.

Ramon Vanden Brulle
Washington trout

Surecatch

"I was simply saying they stuff badly degraded, urban rivers with hatchery fish and leave the others alone."

Interesting, maybe not a bad idea.

WHERE does this idea come from?

Plain and simple response. I'm for reforms. But if we're REALLY going to do something, we need to do it together. That's the big problem. We don't. We have too many sides. You have certain groups who are trying to save the fish, that truly aren't sportsman, or have very little sportsman blood in them. I would love to say "I'll give up all my fishing until returns come back". Chances are, if that is the case, they won't deam a run "harvestable" until most of us have well become too old to truly enjoy the resource anymore. We need a group that works together. We don't need an organization. All they do is quite literally take money out of YOUR pockets. PERIOD. Money you've paid through the sweat off your back. You need to all realize we have too many "fish first" type organizations. We need ONE, PERIOD. I feel personally, get rid of all the WT's, WSC's, TU's, etc. Make on CENTRAL organization. This way we'd actually have some power to do something. Reforms have been going on at hatcheries, but it's slow going of course. You don't do a 180 overnight. If you do, you have sloppy transitions. That's purely from a business sense. Problem is, we'll never be as one. Why we'll never see what we all would like, wild fish again in high numbers. Too many groups bashing each other/the state.

Then, it comes down to federal funding. Well, ALL monies come from us one way or another. So, just because the monies from our licenses don't go to WDFW (which is completly stupid), the money comes from US either way. Funding is done through tax dollars, and I do believe most of us pay taxes. But I will say, not ALL should have a say in reforms. There are some knowledgeable people in the public arena, but alot of idiots too. It's a waste of time and taxpayers money to have to weed out all the BS. It's a nice thought, but overall costly. I highly doubt these public comments will come without a price, unless WT plans to pay for the processing of written letters or the cost to pay for a public arena. Who is the cost coming from? US! That's what ticks me off the most.

If you've noticed, I don't post on science and my true position. Why? Because I've seen facts on both sides that have supposedly proved "facts" one way or another. Which scientist is correct? Should we go through their backgrounds and do final judgement? Just ludicris to me. Basically too many cooks in the kitchen. I've been on both sides of the fence, both have plus and minuses. Both are unfounded as well. Each river system is different, so can't judge all rivers as same.

RK43,
Good post I think you nailed alot of the facts.

All I am saying is a river system with a hatchery that introduced eggs from another river (Skamania steelhead in the Cow) probably has no true "wild/Native" fish because of interbreeding with the hatchery fish.

My definition of a true wild fish, is a fish generated from the same gene pool as was in the river before the introduction of hatcheries.

True, rivers with hatcheries have natuarally spawning fish. But are they truely "wild"?

I don't think so. It is not the adipose that makes a fish wild. It is the gene pool that the fish came from.

Again, hatcheries make for some very fun and productive fishing. Lets build MORE.

It makes sense.....but I don't think the science supports this conclusion. One study done on the Kalama showed little or no genetic dilution of the wild fish due to the presence of hatchery fish. The reason being that when a wild and hatchery fish spawn, their offspring have extremely poor survival rates, so they aren't able to pass those genetics on to their offspring.

I'd like to see studies of this nature done on many systems in the state to see if the results are the same.

Dan S.,
Just wondering how these studies could be valid if we dont have the genetic information from a wild fish before human interaction?? The thread "got science" says the genetic code can be changed in a couple generations.So whats to say the fish they are studying are not allready changed?

Its logic duro...if you use mitochondrial DNA of a known fish, hatchery fish, you can deduce the rest from there.

I think it is unfair to criticize my post, i think hatcheries are postive thing, maybe they are trying to cover up the fact that wild stocks are way down. But putting me on the spot for what i said is just wrong. You posted your opinion and so did i, if everybody agreed on the same issues there would be nothing to talk about and you wouldnt even have to post that you are against hatcheries.

Don't sweat it, okieboy...........

I get the feeling you're not the only ProStaffer hanging out here.

Steelheader69,

I have to disagree-
The WSC did not take money away from our members they gladly joined because they want to walk the talk. Some members also prefer to support financially because of distant locations or other time constraints. The membership fees is the WSC operating budget and has allowed the WSC to do things like take a leadership role and sponsor the recent steelhead summits to help bring organizations together in collaboration.

Below is from a earlier thread:

On Saturday the WSC hosted Steelhead Summit 2 at REI in Seattle. The WSC would like to publically thank all the organizations and clubs that attended and participated. We are truely developing a coalition! What I witnessed yesterday was truely a working together/collaborative relationship by diverse organizations such as PSA, Trout Unlimited, FFF, WT, American Rivers, NW Marine Trade Ass'n. We would also like to thank the NW Women FF and Washington Council of FFF for their respective donations to help sponsor Summit 2.

Dave Bailey, once again did great job planning/coordinating as well as support from Dick Burge and Jack Berryman. Also thanks to all the other WSC board members who participated and helped out. Dee Norton once again was our reporter on the spot and I am sure will compose a great report. We are truely developing a strong voice for steelhead!

If your organization or club is interested in participating in a future summit feel free to email the WSC Summit committee at captain@olypen.com

Double Haul, you TOTALLY misread my post. I wasn't making a comment that the WSC was bad. I was making a point about different organizations that popped into my head. Each have their own agenda, which noone can deny. I was saying that they need to consolidate into ONE organization. How many guys truly join all the groups? Not many I'd assume. There is power in NUMBERS, not number of organizations. Too many groups cause conflict. Basically I was saying NOTHING will get done if you have fishermen/women in DIFFERENT groups supporting different agenda's. WSC IS A GROUP! They have a membership, so I put them in the mix. Didn't say they were lowlife scums (pretty sure I didn't). You can't tell me that it helps your organization when you have a ton of guys in the RFA, WT, TU, etc. If there are members in multiple groups, you have more of a chance for them to leave yours to vote another groups stance.

Strength in #'s is what I was getting to. I know all about the ways some groups go. I chose NOT to support ANY group at this point. I do my part with stream cleanups on my OWN, I follow the rules, I turn in poachers I see, and try to support positive reforms and have even helped in signature drives for initiatives. But, takes more then ONE person, takes a WHOLE fishing community to join as ONE to have ONE voice that will be heard. MANY voices come out garbled. Why do you think we shoot ourselves in the foot (why we should stick to fishing, not hunting lol ).

Hope this clarifies to you. But if you want me to rank on WSC, I'll figure out something if it makes you feel better.

double haul, did all these groups agree on anything at the wsc summit ?

Here we go again...back to the real meaning of a "wild fish" I read some very good comments from everyone who replyed to this situation' but again this is where the state screws up all the time!!! THEY DO NOT EDUCATE THE PUBLIC WELL ENOUGH!! The state considers a "wild fish" basically any fish that is hatched in a river system or a natural environment whether it's parents are originally from a hatchery or not. There are not too many "Native Fish " left in the state. Most river systems have had salmon introduced from some other river system.
Now to stick up for the hatcheries and the state to a point... I really want to belive that if they knew how detramental the hatchery practices were when it was started 100 years ago, they would have done things better. The state knows this, but it was not untill recent ( past 20 - 25 yrs) technology that they found out about the devestation it was having on the "Native Fish".
Now for my opinion... I think that it is too late to save most native runs of salmon...what do we want to do? Not fish anymore on awsome rivers or wait till after we die (till the old groth comes back) to be able to fish? If they determined these Puget Sound threatened species non-recoverable, the state could start raising more fish and 100% be able to up the economy in all ways like it was. It has not been till all this liberal b.s. came down the line that the state had to wonder why no one is fishing and spending money!!
Now on the other hand I truely think there are many Native runs of sthd in the state that can be saved!! Much to the dis belief of some people it is very unlikely that many hatchery winter sthd and native winter sthd can spawn. Most or all the winter hatchery sthd that are released from hatcheries originated from Chambers Creek...one main reason is because it was an early run of sthd and native runs are later. On the rivers that I know very well the native run comes in a month or so after the hatchery fish spawn and the nate's do not spawn for the most part for 2 - 4 months after...leaving it very unlikely that hatchery sthd and native sthd will ever spawn in most river systems.
I could go on... but don't have the time...bottom line is and I say again do you want to fish or try saving a lost cause that is mainly out of our hands?
p.s. the main reason why WT backed out of the so called "BIG LAWSUIT" is because the tribes told them if they want to persue this than they would take WT to federal court and tear them up!!! I never thout I would ever say thank god for the Bolt Decision!!!

Here we go again...back to the real meaning of a "wild fish" I read some very good comments from everyone who replyed to this situation' but again this is where the state screws up all the time!!! THEY DO NOT EDUCATE THE PUBLIC WELL ENOUGH!! The state considers a "wild fish" basically any fish that is hatched in a river system or a natural environment whether it's parents are originally from a hatchery or not. There are not too many "Native Fish " left in the state. Most river systems have had salmon introduced from some other river system.

Now to stick up for the hatcheries and the state to a point... I really want to belive that if they knew how detramental the hatchery practices were when it was started 100 years ago, they would have done things better. The state knows this, but it was not untill recent ( past 20 - 25 yrs) technology that they found out about the devestation it was having on the "Native Fish".

Now for my opinion... I think that it is too late to save most native runs of salmon...what do we want to do? Not fish anymore on awsome rivers or wait till after we die (till the old groth comes back) to be able to fish? If they determined these Puget Sound threatened species non-recoverable, the state could start raising more fish and 100% be able to up the economy in all ways like it was. It has not been till all this liberal b.s. came down the line that the state had to wonder why no one is fishing and spending money!!

Now on the other hand I truely think there are many Native runs of sthd in the state that can be saved!! Much to the dis belief of some people it is very unlikely that many hatchery winter sthd and native winter sthd can spawn. Most or all the winter hatchery sthd that are released from hatcheries originated from Chambers Creek...one main reason is because it was an early run of sthd and native runs are later. On the rivers that I know very well the native run comes in a month or so after the hatchery fish spawn and the nate's do not spawn for the most part for 2 - 4 months after...leaving it very unlikely that hatchery sthd and native sthd will ever spawn in most river systems.

I could go on... but don't have the time...bottom line is and I say again do you want to fish or try saving a lost cause that is mainly out of our hands?

p.s. the main reason why WT backed out of the so called "BIG LAWSUIT" is because the tribes told them if they want to persue this than they would take WT to federal court and tear them up!!! I never thought I would ever say thank god for the Bolt Decision!!!

Steelheader69, Thanks for the clairification, however you seem to disregard the fact that the WSC is trying to form part of what your talking about.

boater, There was actually quite a bit agreed to, but the biggest agreement was to work together and forge ahead with ad hoc committees fom the first summit. A report will be sent out to the summit attendees, WSC membership and then place on the WSC website when completed.

Double Haul, there is no disregard. I haven't looked into them at all. I may eventually, but as of right now I haven't. Like I said, I have a bad taste for organizations, so tend to steer clear of them. No disregard at all, just never the inclination to look.

This is what really gets me steamed...... The fish decline problem saddens me deeply, but the Tribal issue just flat pisses me off. Treaty waving tribal members that espout how they are and always have been "Stewards of the land" are the most vocal and sometimes flat nasty when anyone even mentions closing the net season to preserve a run. Then comes the renegades that fish anyway, the rest join in cause they don't want to miss their share, then the thing goes to court and the gov't buckles and gives in. Commercials, who also only think about the resource in $$ will fuss, but in the end the gov't recommendation will win. Sportsmen are always the ones to say "Hey, if it will save a fish" and then watch as the Tribes stretch the nets across the mouth of a river. Take a trip up the Columbia Gorge sometime in July and count the nets. In 1993, I checked out how many tribal claims were on the columbia and was very shocked to find it was in the thousands. Multiply that my the maximum # of nets each claim is allowed (I think 7 nets max), and do the numbers. How many wild fish get caught in these nets? Do the tribes care? For the most part no. They will not give up their "right", no matter what. In the end, if the fish are gone, it will be the white mans fault anyway. Will they accept their role in the demise of the wild runs? No.
Commercials are nearly as bad. They know what the condition of the fish stocks are, but it is all $$ to them, and they will cry the same as farmers that they are "losing our way of life". Well, times change, and unfortuanately we ALL must change with them. Sometimes it hurts really bad, but that is life. As far as the Flyfishing elitists that make up the majority of groups like WT, Bill Bakke, etc. are idiots and very contradictory. Just go to one of their favorite flyfishing hangouts and see what they drive. SUV's are NOT good for the environment, but you had better not tell them to give up their comfort or luxury..... But YOU BETTER NOT DRILL FOR OIL ON THE NORTH SLOPE!!!!!
Same with the PETA people. Curse you for wearing leather shoes, but how environmentally friendly do they think their plastic shoes are???? What about the emissions that the manufaturing process spews into the air??

In the end, we all think we are right in our beliefs, but generally it is the "lowly sportman" that is the only one really willing to give up some of their pleasures for the sake of saving the runs.... But are the only ones of all groups that really end up giving anything up.... I for one am really sick of it and without the hatcheries, the only ones to really suffer will be the sportsman..... Ooops, sorry.. Cannot leave out the great sportswomen out there too like AuntyM, who I think has a lot of great ideas.

Thanks all for the patience, and I can take flaming as good as anyone, so FIRE AWAY!!!

MC

Another aspect is that hatcheries are a poor investment.

We pay lip service to preserving/restoring habitat, but where does the money go - into hatchery operations. In Oregon, about 90% of the Fish Divisions budget goes to hatchery operations.

Hatcheries are a never-ending, ever-escalating annual EXPENSE. As opposed to restoration, access, conservation easements, etc. etc. which are an INVESTMENT.

Stuffing rivers with hatchery product is not ensuring your future access, or keeping (clean) water in the river, or preserving the wild stock whose genes are needed to perpetuate hatchery production.

You get what you pay for, and the current situation is most of the scarce dollars are going to artificial propagation.

IF THE STATE SHUTS DOWN ALL THE HATCHERIES LIKE ALL THE LIBERAL ORGANIZATIONS WANT TO DO (by the way I think that a lot of these replys come from people who don't even fish !) THE STATE WOULD PROBABLY GET SUED BY THE TRIBES BECAUSE OF THE MITIGATION TREATIES.
(The reason why I think a lot of the people who are on this site don't fish is because everyone realizes that without hatcheries there would be little or no fishing...there are other liberal...no VERY LIBERAL agendas on this site. Too much so for most true fisherman...especially bait chuckers...you know - the non flyfishermen

According to whom?

Also...exactly how many is 'not too many'?

also...I rarely 'chuck bait' but I never fly-fish. Where does that put me on your right wing/left wing scale as it relates to fishing?

sure, but the numbers are so low that it doesn't justify keeping them

"Not many native fish left . . . " Yeah, where does this come from? The genetic evidence allows one to reasonably (few things in science are absolute. Only on internet BBs like this are many things absolute. Sorry, couldn't resist.) conclude that there are a lot of native salmon and steelhead populations remaining in WA. You don't need pre-hatchery specimens in order to make this analysis.

I mostly fly fish; guess that makes my a left wing conspiritor. My pappy taught me it takes two wings to fly straight, however.

Stlhdh2o,

Technically, you could close the parts of a hatchery that are not dedicated to chinook recovery, but there are practical economic issues as well. It costs a lot of money to operate a hatchery. The cost per unit of production skyrockets if you close all but a small part of it. Consider a factory that produces model A, B, C, and D widgets cost effectively. If you shut it down to supply only the limited A model widget, it becomes uneconomic. Now, as a public facility, it's politically untenable to openly and knowingly operate a high-cost, low-output hatchery, leaving staff with little else to do but mow the lawn and tend the garden. The political backlash is very mean-spirited. BB members like CFM would tear them apart. So while technically possible, it's not economically or politically viable.

Uhm, sorry about political reality. I didn't think it's a secret. State legislators, on average, don't give a rat's @ss about fish, among other things. Fishery interests, either commercial or recreational, give their representative the idea, lobby for it, and the representative sees it as building their constituent base, so they promote it in the house and senate, and many of them became reality, provided they are not opposed by WDFW, which generally doesn't oppose ideas that are consistent with the concept of empire building because that is one of the main things government does. Ergo, we have lots of hatcheries.

WDFW proposes the closure of its least productive facilities when faced with budget cutbacks, such as in the last session. However, virtually every hatchery is somebody's sacred cow, so they howl to their representative who then works to ensure it stays open, even if there's no money to operate it. Ain't politics exciting? Or perhaps stupid? Well, bear with, because I've met groups of legislators who don't seem to have the collective IQ of a box of rocks. But they do have lots of political savy, and unfortunately they mistake that for intelligence, and I'm getting off topic here.

Intelligent solutions lie in the grassroots, not the legislature. If you trust me on nothing else, believe this. The more you study it, the more you will believe it.

So yes, the legislature has repeatedly kept unproductive hatcheries open. WDFW (old WDG, actually) was able to close Barnaby Slough on the Skagit in 1980 due to miserable performance. Yet the Wildcat Steelhead Club lobbied and persevered to have it reopened, and did so by about 1990, although, as modified, it's still a miserable performer. And the WSC got the legislature to appropriate 4 or 5 million dollars for a steelhead hatchery at Grandy Creek, in spite of expected lousy performance from it as well. An adult return rack and smolt imprinting and release ponds are moving forward there, last I heard, because the money is available, and the WSC and the two legislators they have lobbied so persistently over the years just won't let it go. The fact that it doesn't make sense in terms of performance gets almost no air play at all. The same can be said for many facilities that don't produce enough adult fish to justify their existance. Politics, not common sense, are THE decision criteria in fisheries.

Oh, and HSRG, the objective auditor. HSRG was created by former fish savior Senator Slade Gorton to "preserve the status quo." That is, to conclude that whatever hatcheries are doing is OK. Well, Slade's gone, and a little science has intervened, but common sense has unfortunately not risen to the top like cream in a can. No. They recommend closing Hupp Springs. Now Hupp Springs isn't the most important facility in Puget Sound, but that IS where White River spring chinook are separately cultured because their existence in the White River was so much in peril. Now, it may come to pass that things in the White will be sorted out positively, and the survival and recovery of the chinook may be assured. But how sensible is it to close the off-site, out-of-basin culture of these very special chinook (talk about unique genetics!) BEFORE we have reasonable assurance of recovery? HSRG isn't all bad, but I'm not counting on them to recover threatened populations. I'd rather not take chances with something like extinction.

We are on the cusp of opportunity to save the "best last . . ." We could save more, but we haven't the collective social will. Politically, we want to say we're going to preserve and restore habitat to recover fish. And in the next breath, the legislature introduced something like 70-some bills this past session that would have weakened WDFW's and DOE's ability to protect the very environment that would recover those fish. Remember the TV Indian phrase: "white man speak with forked tongue." so true, so true. The very direction our state is going is to restore and recover threatened fish by engaging in more of the very actions that caused their listing as threatened in the first place. Government funds 50 habitat improvement projects, and during the same time period approves 500 habitat degradation projects. You really shouldn't get me started. . .

Saving wild salmon and steelhead is fairly simple, but the primary action is so very hard. Step one: stop degrading habitat. Step two: repeat step one. Failing to do that, all the habitat restoration projects to date maybe reduce the rate of loss by about 10% (my rough estimate, not scientifcally measured).

I haven't seen the Feather River study. Hatchery smolts, primarily coho due to their size and street fighting personalities, do eat other fish. Coho like pink fry, but miss most of them due to migration timing differences. Next, they like chum fry. Chum are a little large for wild coho, but the larger hatchery smolts can handle them. In north Puget Sound, hatchery coho releases have been delayed until June 1 to minimize interaction (code word for predation) with chum. In some cases, hatchery coho smolts have both the size, timing, and opportunity to prey on wild chinook smolts. I don't assume the problem is the same everywhere. Most Puget Sound chinook are in the estuary by June 1, where they grow like crazy. And those that are coming down river at the same time as the coho are larger than their earlier timed counterparts, and should be less susceptable to coho predation. There may be some recent Puget Sound research on this, but I haven't had a chance to check. So yes, the concept that big fish eat little fish holds true, but there is usually more to the story, and I'm except for the former issues between hatchery coho and chum, I'm not aware that hatchery smolt predation on wild smolts is presently a serious issue in most (I didn't say all) of western WA.

Sorry to be so long responding. I kinda' overlooked this thread.

Sincerely,

Salmo g.

Thanks Salmo....lots to consider here.

reminds me of ""War and Peace" in college...

Anyway the observations on politics are pretty good. The big missing link here is economics....unemployment....Boeing (leaving)..
farmers (irrigation)...developers (habitat loss)..
When you say that politicians don't care about fish you're right unless they can get a photo op out of it like Governor Locke and Norm Dicks did recently when the hatchery recommendations came out...they appropriated a bunch of money and made it sound like salmon were saved already (thanks to them of course)...Now we have the new water allocation bill that will please alot of the above and piss off fishermen...but to the politicians the interest groups above are way more important to their voter base than we fishermen. BUT if you portray the salmon in the same light as say the spotted owl like WT does so well you get more political attention.
So pandering to the correct interest group at the right time is a tough job for the politician. Hatcheries may get some long awaited reform in spite of these bafoons. Look to the fishing organizations to lead the way...(fingers crossed)..good civil discussion for the most part so far. (what happened?)

Salmo, Well said

Please note in Salmo post when he refers to WSC it stand for Wild Cat Steelhead Club not the Wild Steelhead Coalition.

The one thing I know for a fact about the state is... Science facts is what they try to go on because without it they don't have a leg to stand on... but that only comes first untill politics come into play!!!

Politics run the fisheries in this state more so than science! So until everyone votes the tribal treaty rights out (which will not happen!) we have to live with status quoe!!!

On another subject...what does anyone out there know about the very sucessful spring chinook hatchery program on the Nooksack River???