how much of the info on THIS webpage does the WDFW follow ?

Sorry for jumping in .. umm well i guess i am not really or I wouldn't be doing it.. I don't know about WT..
But here is what i think...... quotes from the text are normal.. my comments are in all caps..


"Because of the potential for circumventing the high rates of early mortality typically experienced in the wild, artificial propagation may be useful in the recovery of listed salmon species. However, artificial propagation entails risks as well as opportunities for salmon conservation, and its ability to supplement and restore natural populations of Pacific salmon is largely unproven. Despite the fact that many artificial propagation programs for Pacific salmon have succeeded in producing fish for harvest, supplementation programs involving artificial propagation have generally not increased the abundance of natural fish. "

OK SO ARTIFICIAL PRODUCTION IS A RISKY AND UNPROVEM METHOD FOR RESTORING WILD RUNS.... STRIKE ONE..


" Artificial propagation of unlisted species should be conducted to minimize adverse impacts to listed and unlisted species. The liberation of large numbers of fish genetically distinct from natural fish and the impacts of mixed-stock fisheries associated with this enhancement may have profound consequences for the viability of some distinct populations, including loss of genetic integrity and ecological diversity, increased competition, and elevated levels of harvest and natural predation. Management practices involving widespread transplantation of nonlocal stocks may also further endanger listed species or contribute to the decline of unlisted species. Continued artificial propagation of unlisted species must minimize the potential for deleterious effects on both listed and unlisted species if it is to be consistent with the maintenance of genetic and ecological diversity in Pacific salmon. "


OK THIS PARAGRAPH TELLS US THAT WHAT WE ARE ALREADY DOING WITH ARTIFICIAL PRODUCTION IS THE WRONG WAY TO GO ABOUT IT.. STRIKE TWO..


"Artificial propagation of Pacific salmon may be consistent with the purposes of the Endangered Species Act in two situations: 1) when artificial propagation facilitates the recovery of a listed species, or 2) when the enhancement of unlisted populations does not impede the recovery of a listed species or compromise the viability or distinctiveness (and hence be a factor in the listing) of an unlisted species. In either case, the proper management of hatchery operations is essential to minimize adverse effects on listed species. "


" NEITHER OF THOES TWO CONDITIONS ARE MET AT ANY HATCHERY. NO HATCHERY HAS EVER AIDED IN THE RECOVERY OF A LISTED SALMON OR STEELHEAD SPECIES.. EVERY HATCHERY ( WHERE WILD FISH EXSIST TOGETHER) ESPECIALLY COHO AND STEELHEAD IMPEEDES THE RESTORATION OF A WILD STOCK. STRIKE THREE

FOR EVERY HATCHERY COHO OR STEELHEAD THAT SPAWNS WITH A WILD FISH YOU TAKE THE POPULATION OF WILD FISH DOWN BY ONE. wHEN THAT HAPPPENS BY THE THOUSANDS AS HAS HAPPENED IN THE COLUMBIA BASIN YOU RND UP WITH NO OR VERY FEW WILD FISH LEFT WHICH IS BASICALLY WHAT WE HAVE NOW. i AM NOT SUGGESTING WE CLOSE ALL HATCHERIES I AM SUGGESTING WE NEED TO CHANGE HOW AND SOMETIMES WHEN WE PUT HATCHERY FISH BECAUSE THEY DO NOT HELP WILD FISH AND ALWAYS HURT THEM..

Rob Allen,

I beg to differ. Hatchery fish benefit wild fish when they are killed in their place. The sole purpose for hatchery fish in my book is to provide extra harvest opportunity. This takes some of the pressure for harvest off of wild runs.

For instance at seiku, wild coho and chinook are released while only hatchery fish are harvested. If there were no hatchery fish, only wild fish would be killed during albeit shortened seasons.

As long as there is an allowed harvest, wild fish will benefit from hatchery fish.

If harvest is totally taken out of the equation (show me a run of salmon where this is the case), then sure hatchery fish do nothing but compete with wild fish. But that is a situation that will not exist as long as any fishing is allowed.

Just my $0.02

here we go again!

Ball One

The fact that many artificial propagation programs for Pacific salmon have succeeded in producing fish for harvest .

Ball Two

"Artificial propagation of Pacific salmon may be consistent with the purposes of the Endangered Species Act

Ball Three

FOR EVERY HATCHERY COHO OR STEELHEAD THAT SPAWNS WITH A WILD FISH YOU TAKE THE POPULATION OF WILD FISH DOWN BY ONE. wHEN THAT HAPPPENS BY THE THOUSANDS AS HAS HAPPENED IN THE COLUMBIA BASIN YOU RND UP WITH NO OR VERY FEW WILD FISH LEFT WHICH IS BASICALLY WHAT WE HAVE NOW. i AM NOT SUGGESTING WE CLOSE ALL HATCHERIES I AM SUGGESTING WE NEED TO CHANGE HOW AND SOMETIMES WHEN WE PUT HATCHERY FISH BECAUSE THEY DO NOT HELP WILD FISH AND ALWAYS HURT THEM..

Wow. Wild Pitch. Ball Four!

Take a Walk R(ong) A(gain)

Billy F. told me the other day that, "without the hatcheries there would be NO fish today"

Speaking of fishin, screw you guys I'm a goin out there right now <img border="0" alt="[Goldfish]" title="" src="graemlins/goldfish.gif" />

May do this,, may be able to do that.. I am sorry if i think our wild fish populations are too valuable to lose do to "risky and unproven" tactics of restoration that have never worked in the past..
If we give them good habitat, and don't kill them they have no choice but to restore themselves. It's REALLY that simple..

Really Rob Allen, how rosy are your glasses?

You think we can just give the fish good habitat?

I would exstatically trade in all the salmon hatcheries in the state for pristine river habitat for our salmon, but it will never happen.

Even if there were the political will to restore good habitat (there is not), the costs would be prohibitive.

Hatcheries are a bandaid covering a grievous wound to the environment. Removing the bandaid will not heal that wound. Neither will the wound be healed by the bandaid as grandpa2 implies.

The only thing that will heal what we have collectively done to the salmon habitat is sacrifice and time. So far I don't see anyone volunteering to pay more for electricity or limit their consumption of fresh water. Thus the immediate prospects look grim indeed.

Without a fundamental change in the way people think, we cannot hope for anything better than the status quo.


The action that we need to take first is to stop all habitat destruction currently underway. It will be easiest to preserve what has yet to be destroyed. After we have stopped current and future habitat destruction, then we can worry about the task of restoring degraded habitat. This will take lots of time and plenty of money.

All this talk about hatcheries just diverts energy and resources from the crux of the problem--HABITAT. I know talking about habitat is not so exciting for many and doesn't get much money in the bank for WT (not to mention headlines).

Salmon recovery =good habitat!

grandpa not only is the sky falling.. It has already fallen!!! I think you should take a look at the history of salmon decline in the northwest.. What we have now is a remnant of what we once had only a few decades ago..

Skagit wild winter runs used to run 20,000 strong.. now the escapment goal is what 6500 and we aren't even meeting that???
We used to have 34 rivers open for harvesting wild steelhead just a few years ago now we have 6 of thoes many have had emergency regulations close them for harvest..
The Washougal used to get 1500 wild summer runs back in the early 60's now we are lucky to get 2 or 3 hundred.. Wild coho nearly extinct in the columbia river system as are wild chinook ( the only decent population being in the North lewis)
Grandpa our fisheries are absolutely in the toilet.. I am very happy that salmon fishing has been good for everyone this fall but Puget sound chinook are still ESA listed and that means by deffinition that they are likely to go extinct in the forseeable future unless somehting is done..

The sky fell a long time ago but the problem was so well masked by hatchery fish that very few pwoplw noticed.. Thats the truth!

absolutely grandpa i will work for a better future.. I just don't think that relying on "ricky and unproven " methods to restore fish is a good idea..

YO ROB..what is your good idea?

ok, show us where a hatchery has helped save a wild run of fish that is now thriving on its own without the help of a hatchery

i would say a run of fish that dont depend on a hatchery to survive

You gotta do better than that...

lots of rivers get only a handful of fish return without the aid of hatcheries. they are by know means thriving...

Its got to be some sort of number of fish per square foot of spawning grounds... ???

something to that effect...

no i dont

Looking at the ESA I see encouragement to use artificial help in reviving a threatened or enddangered species. Many such artificial programs have succeeded for many species. Some have not. There are some programs underway to help native stocks recover. The absolute mentality AuntyM is referring to is what doesn't work. That is the one way or the other method of solving a problem instead of a little of both. Those who post here espousing the closure of hatcheries are the "my-way-or-the-highway" bunch who cannot be reasoned with if it involves compromise.Not pilot program no matter how promising is acceptable to them. No middle ground. No mitigation. Just rhetoric and endless recitations about the tragedy of it all. I think there are promising programs being tried at this time that involve hatcheries. That does not mean I think there is not a problem nor does it mean I think all hatchery programs are fine. It simply means I would like to give the promising programs a chance to bear fruit and help them along instead of saying "IT WILL NEVER WORK!" like Eyore so often does.

"No hatchery has ever aided in the recovery of a salmon or steelhead species." YET.

How about we be fair and open minded? Until recently, hatcheries were invariably used for other purposes, so why would anyone expect them to aid recovery of threatened and endangered wild populations? Now there are several hatchery programs that are being utilized either just for recovery or recovery and supplemental harvests.

Just the other day, Smalma described the situation of Stillaguamish River chinook. The spawning escapement had been in a declining trend since WDFW began keeping escapement records. The Stilly Tribe began a native chinook broodstock program in the 1980s to supplement and recover the population. Escapements have improved as a result. However, when biologists examined the survival rates of the strictly wild chinook, the return is still declining. This is due almost exclusively to degraded habitat conditions, not overharvest.

Given the present situation, closure of the Stilly chinook program would more likely than not result in the eventual extinction of the population because the rate of habitat recovery in the watershed is just too slow. There really isn't anything significant anyone can do about that. What can be done, is to continue the hatchery program that can help the population persist well into the future, so that, if and when the habitat does recovery sufficiently, there will still be Stillaguamish chinook around to utilize that habitat. Without this hatchery program, there may not be any possibility of recovery.

Hatchery programs have and are being used in Hood Canal to aid summer chum salmon. Returns have been very good for several streams. I'm not sure of the present status of those programs, but I heard that at least some of those hatchery programs will be terminated to test the hypothesis that summer chum have recovered in some key HC streams. If so, that will be evidence that hatchery programs aided recovery of ESA listed salmon.

Hatchery programs haven't yet recovered chinook and steelhead in the mid-Columbia, but without the hatcheries, those fish would have faced certain extinction. At least the possibility of recovery still remains.

Hatchery chinook, coho, and steelhead are being used to reintroduce anadromous fish into the upper Cowlitz River basin. They have not "recovered," but significant numbers of wild coho and steelhead are now returning to the Cowlitz. In a few years, these fish may recover, due to the aid from hatchery programs.

At this time, it is speculative to say that hatcheries will aid recovery, but I can say that hatcheries are essential to the possibility of recovery of several ESA listed species.

Sincerely,

Salmo g.

There no doubt are some hatchery programs that are maintaining a genetic bank for fish that would surely have gone extinct by now, or would be going extinct very soon. The Hood Canal Summer Chums and Mid- Upper- Columbia Summer Runs, and Upper-Columbia Springers and Sockeye are a few that come to mind.

Those runs, however, were (and for the most part, are still) way beyond any other help whatsoever.

No habitat fixes in the world are going to matter when multiple dams eat up 99% of outgoing smolts, and kill or severely hamper a large percentage of adults. For those Upper Columbia fish, there is no other choice.

There also is no directed fishery for any of those fish. The brilliance of netting loads of them up in the Lower Columbia "Tangle Net" fishery (aka, catch and release from a gillnet) is already killing way too many of those fish.

Salmo's point about the Stilly chinook is very well taken...that watershed has lost almost all of its lower river backwaters, historically created by beaver dams, which is where all the wild chinook rear. Without those areas, they're doomed.

Other rivers, however, aren't quite as bad off. I'd say that Skykomish chinook have pretty good habitat, at least for spawning. A high intensity hatchery program would without a doubt hurt the fish that are there, through all types of competition through all life stages.

Those fish don't need a genetic bank housed in a hatchery...they have one existing within themselves already.

I guess I'd have to say, IMHO, that hatchery programs are without a doubt detrimental to wild runs that do not need artificial supplementation. There comes a point, however, when the wild runs are in such a state as to be aided by hatchery fish.

Those fish can't be out of basin fish, first off, and hatchery practices should be tweaked in order to create a product that is less likely to have adverse affects on the wild fish.

Lastly, without pointing any fingers, since I can't read minds, only typed messages, I'd encourage everyone to honestly discuss with themselves why they hold a particular stance on hatcheries and hatchery fish.

If you say you don't think hatcheries hurt wild fish, or that they are necessary for ESA recovery, make sure you don't mean "hatcheries provide me with a better fishery" in your mind.

I think it's a perfectly valid perspective to not care where a fish came from, so long as you get to catch a lot, and eat some if you want. Just don't cloak that opinion in statements opining that hatcheries aren't bad for wild fish.

It's also a perfectly valid perspective to think that all hatcheries are bad, for all wild fish. Just don't expect to fish much for salmon or steelhead until the wild runs rebound to a fishable level.

I think my perspective is valid also...I value wild fish over hatchery fish. I value fishing over not fishing, and I also value a chance to catch something when I do fish over a much lesser chance to do so.

For me, that shakes out to; 1. Support the protection of wild runs that do exist. 2. Fish selectively where hatchery runs and wild runs that can handle the incidental catch are coexistent. 3. Support hatchery programs that are at least minimally adverse to wild fish, and preferably benign (if those exist?)

I catch a lot of hatchery fish with eggs from other hatchery fish, and I eat a lot of hatchery fish, and so do all my non-fishing friends.

I also catch a lot of wild fish, and I have lots of good pictures of them, and lots of hope that I can catch and release their progeny a few years down the line.

Fish on...

Todd.

Salmo G it is my opinion that the only way to know if a hatchery program has successfully restored a run of fish is for the hatchery program to stop producing fish.. At that time you can measure the results by what comes back in the following years.. Based on everything i have read the reasonable thing to expect to happen is a sudden decline in the overall population with no offspring of the hatchery raised fish left.. very few Bio'd will say that but thats what all their studying points to..
I have conversed with one of the bio's from LLTK and i think their ambitions are very noble however I think it's wise to wait for an experiment to run it's course before claiming that hatcheries have any chance of restoring wild runs.. To me a run being prolonged a few years by a hatchery doesn't mean much if at the end of the program there are no wild fish to show for it..

I am sorry i cannot be optomistic on these kinds of issues because i see no reason for optimism. I have yet to see a government agency despite the best intentions do anything positive for wild fish in the long term.. Especially WDFW!!

I am not anti hatchery.. I am pro wild fish and near as I can tell from all the available science the two positions cannot be reconciled. I really wish they could but i am not willing to rest my hope on a "risky and unproven" method..

ALL hatcheries are genetically selective it is impossible to avoid.. No matter what you do or where your broodstock comes from the hatchery enviroment will ALWAYS ( every single time) select fish that are better suited for survival in the hatchery setting. it's something you simply cannot get around..

If hatcheries had the ability to restore self sustaining wild runs I'd be all for that and maybe someday they will.. but in the mean time we have to rely on other methods and we aren't!!! it seems to me like every government agency is only looking at hatcheries and only giving other options minor lip service.. Thats why you see me yelling about hatcheries all the time..