I still don't see people answering the two questions.

1) Should hatchery fish be counted as wild fish if similar (by the way they don't have a good definition of what similar means and I asked the question at the meeting it is left up to them to decide)?

2) Should rainbows be counted in determining an ESA listing? (and they admit that it could be applied completely differently then it is now and they have no idea what contribution residents have on the anadromous populations. Again i asked at the meeting last night.

Gpa I agree that balance is a good thing and we do need to see both sides. I think too far one way is bad and too far the either is equally bad.

I have seen one example, summer chum on Hood Cannal, where they may have helped a wild run recover. Anything else? With the LONG history of hatcheries that seems like a poor track record to me. So with your Puget Sound example is it the fish that will go away or the fishing. To me it is a big difference and I have a feeling it would be the fishing that would go away which is a different issue the the fish going away. I will plead ignorance on a lot f the PS Chinook issues though. What hatcheries are ading in the recovery of the wild chinook?

JJ

JJ-- One of the problems I have with blanket statements made by anyone is that natural systems vary so much, and we know so little. That's why I'm against the "all hatcheries are bad" statements of some on this board.

A good case can be made for the effects of populations of resident rainbows on recovery of the native fish of a system. With all the plantings of hatchery steelhead that have been made, it could well be that we have little if any native stock left. The definition I'm using here is that "native" means native to the watershed with ancestors who evolved in that river system. "Wild" fish are those that spawn in the stream but may not be native-- even if they are the progeny from a couple of generations back.

It could be that all the native gene pool left in a river system is in the resident rainbows, assuming that rainbows haven't been planted in the system and none or few of the planted steelhead have residualized.


Can those native rainbows be used to bring back the gene pool of steelhead native to the river? Maybe, if some of the rainbows migrate to sea. However, that doesn't always happen. For instance, in the Kenai River, there is a tremendous population of native rainbows, char and salmon. There is no reason for rainbows to not migrate, but they don't. The Kenai system doesn't support a run of steelhead, at least in the main river. Why? No one knows.

There are no studies that give answers to many of the questions that we're asking. The only thing science can offer us right now is guesses.

The good news is that if we don't totally screw up the habitat, and if the weather patterns and ocean conditions don't alter significantly, wild fish will return and native fish will again populate the rivers and streams. 15,000 years ago, there were no salmon and steelhead from Puget Sound north. However, native fish did re-establish themselves in thriving numbers.

That, however, is a long time between bites.

My $.02,

Keith

JJ -
I'll take a stab at your questions -
1) Should similar hatchery fish be counted? It is clear that the use of hatcheries can in at least some situation aid with the recovery of a given population thus there may be situations where hatcheries could and possibly should be one of the tools available for recovery though I beleive that use should be limited.

The test of genetic similarity tells only part of the story and for me at least not a very good screening factor. It is much more important that hatchery fish be at least reasonably productive in the habitat in which one is striving for recovery.

An example (timely given the recent petition to list steelhead in Puget Sound) would be the Chamber's Creek winter steelhead. Clearly they are genetically very similar to some of the central South Sound wild steelhead populations. Under the criteria being discussed would likely be included in a listing of the Puget Sound steelhead. However it has also been clearly shown that those hatchery fish spawning in the wild are extremely unproductive and in most (all?) situations I would be hard pressed to show how they might contribute to the recovery of a depressed population. Thus I would feel that they should be excluded from any listing.

2) Should rainbows be include with steelhead?

In all discussion of recovery efforts of an ESA listed stock the diversity aspect of the population in question is one of the essentials for recovery. The resident life history of O. mykiss (rainbows) is clearly part of the life history diversity of the species. It has been shown that rainbows will spawn with steelhead (usually rainbow males and steelhead females), that the offspring from rainbows may produce steelhead smolts, and that some offspring of steelhead may remain in freshwater their entire life.

In short rainbows are an important part of the species diversity and likely play an important role in the long term viability of the species therefore should be included in ESA discussions of steelhead.

Tight lines
S malma

The "news" that AM heard regards a petition to list PS steelhead as threatened or endangered under the ESA. It was filed by Sam Wright, a very experienced fisheries professional who worked in various capacities for WDFW for years. Sam has done some consulting for WT in the past, but this petition has nothing to do with WT. He didn't even tell us he was filing it. With everything else going on these days, we haven't even fully reviewed it, let alone taken a position. We will, and when we do, I'll let you all know. In fact I think some of the folks at WSC may know more about it than I do.

Ramon Vanden Brulle
Washington Trout

"In fact I think some of the folks at WSC may know more about it than I do."

I don't think that we have fully reviewed the petition yet, either...I personally haven't done more than give a copy a quick flip through, so no opinions yet, official or otherwise, from me.

We will, of course, fully review it and have some sort of statement regarding its relative merits.

Fish on...

Todd

It was filed by Sam Wright, a very experienced fisheries professional who worked in various capacities for WDFW for years.


It was Sam Wright who was at the harvest management wheel of WDF when hatchery production was ramped up in the 1970's folks.

"Sam has done some consulting for WT in the past, but this petition has nothing to do with WT"

Oh Boy...Someone's nose is reeeaaalllly getting long now.

This is a personal message, not related to WT or my position there.

I'm going to go a little too far and say that I am pretty much sick and tired of you grandpa. You have called me a liar one too many times. You have no idea what you're talking about, as usual. You like to traffic in inuendo and character assasination because you cannot rely on anything else. I said that the petition has nothing to do with WT. It doesn't. If you want to call me a liar, prove it, without making stuff up, which is your usual MO.

Implying that WT is behind Sam's petition because we have paid him in the past for his expertise makes as much sense as saying WDFW must be behind it because he used to work for them. It makes as much sense as 99% of your posts.

Anyone who had even an inkling of what he was talking about would know that Sam is about the most inedependent-minded guy you could meet, and does what he thinks is right, without any prompting from anyone. He knows more about fisheries issues than I will ever learn, and I would never presume to offer him any advice.

As I said, WT has not even had a chance to fully review Sam's petition, so I can not and won't speak to it's relative merits. But of course you're not interested in that either, because it would require the tiniest understanding of the issues at hand, and any capacity at all for critical thought. I'm only speaking to the relative merits of your contributions to this board and these discussions. They are by and large worthless and devisive, with little or no regard to the truth or reason. Since you call yourself grandpa, I assume you have grandchildren; they must be proud.

If this gets me booted from this board, it will have been worth it. But I would like to remind the moderators that I was the one called a liar (not for the first time), and that I can hardly be the only one here who holds this opinion.

Grandpa... regarding "balance"

what you fail to see is that the system we have been operating under and are still operationg under is extremely unbalanced towards the non protection of wild salmon and steelhead.. anything moving towards balance can consist ONLY of more restrictive requirements for all sources of impact...

we are massively lopsided against wild fish on harvest issues, on habitat issues and on hatchery issues.. to move towards balance the pro hatcheries have to give stuff up the pro harvesters have to give up stuff and the habitat destroyers have to give up stuff.. meanwhile wild fish have to give up nothing at all... the only way to balance our managment approach is for everyone to sacrifice for the fish... the fish can sacrifice no more.. they have already done their fair share for balance...


as far as the sky falling... well anyone who cannot see that the sky has already fallen and we are now crushed under it simply does not understand what we have already lost....

ramon...sorry for a joke gone wrong. Sam's petition is peppered with personal opinion as much of your postings are. So we can agree to disagree on those opinions.

Grandpa,

It's one thing to disagree (I actually sort of enjoy it); it's another to accuse someone of dishonesty.

But... given my admittedly over-the-top reaction, your simple, straightforward apology is more than gracious and leaves me feeling not a little chagrinned. I'll accept your apology and thank you for not taking the bait. I propose a temporary cease-fire, in which time I'll review Sam's petition. Then we can debate its merits and go back to keeping our digs as understated as possible.

ramon....Not only will I apologize but go further to say I do not hold you in as much disdain as the internet alter ego that lurks here. The real person will , no doubt, meet you in person some day soon and I am hoping at that time that we can find common ground...I usually intend to stir things up here for entertainment value and sometimes forget that there are very few here that know my warped sense of humor which would cause them to scoff at what you take so seriously. This is a somewhat public forum that I have renamed " The Personal Attack Channel" . As we move forward with big jobs ahead to save our resources from demise I hope to temper myself here so as not to be misinterpretted elsewhere where it really counts. thanks for beieng somewhat of a good sport.

Oh and by the way, my grandson loves his grampa. And he fishes too.

Fair enough grandpa.

And by the way yourself: I forgot that I owe you an apology. Even in the context of my rant the grandpa crack was an unjustifiable low blow. For what it's worth I'm sorry.

OK we'll start on a better footing next time.