Mr. Chain Blue Lightning himself! I think your being a little quick on the lock recently, bud. The overall topic that is being addressed here needs no be discussed somewhere, sometime. If the name calling can stop I think we are gettng at some good stuff.

On the argument brought up about the Broodstock Program: I'm no biologist, but I'll take a crack at the logic. Lets assume 20 adult females that would normally spawn in the wild are captured for egg harvest. Lets assume there are 5000 eggs per female. That equates to 100,000 fetilized eggs. I believe the incubation of eggs in a hatchery environment produces a higher number of fry and smolt. It has to, they are raised in a dish under nominal stress. So right there, the process is yielding more fish than would have occured naturally.

If I'm correct, the survival rate of hatchery fish and wild fish at sea are about the same, with 10% or so returning as adults. So we've got more fish comming back to spawn resulting from broodstock production than would have had their parents spawned naturally.

Where "the available science" falls apart is knowing how many of those hatchery fish are able to successfully reproduce in the wild and their subsequent yield of smolt . I assume it is relatively low (that whole "retarded^2" thing). But, with more returning fish than would have been the natural case, a lower yield may not necessarily mean fewer fish, in which case Broodstock programs may actually be helping to sustain wild fish. Who knows? I do know we don't have the data to intelegently make absoulute statements about the Broodstock Programs either way.

I am tempted to write-off PNWfisher's statements simply based on the fact they smell of anti-fishing sentiment, and I am a fisherman.

Either that or a Troll from another board.

The thread started on the right foot, however quickly reverted to name calling and behavior that has had my email working overtime.

As for the thread entitled " My apology to the WSC" closure of that topic was long overdue. The content and language made that one a no brainer.

If you want these type of topics to remain open then YOU need to work hard at keeping them going in the right direction and not always feed the fire.

I re-read the entire topic and it appears that it has very little to do with "Fish Handling during the SolFly Tournament ." It appears to be more of an arguement about the merits of the tournament itself.

Correct me if I am wrong.

Sol,

You're roughly correct on the concept. The underlying assumption for native broodstocking programs is that the program yields greater production in subsequent adults than does natural production. Some such programs may have never been monitored for their effectiveness, so it's unknown whether the fundamental assumption is satisfied or not. I know from experience that the native broodstocking programs on the Sauk and Skagit Rivers didn't satisfy that assumption on a sustained basis - meaning some years were successful and some weren't.

I don't know how successful the Snider Creek program is, only that it has persisted longer than others. If there are monitoring results for the program, it would be in everyone's interest to know what they reveal.

For what it's worth, native broodstock were used when hatchery steelhead programs began on the Wynoochee and Skookumchuck Rivers in the early 1970s as dam mitigation measures. They have persisted for over 30 years at this point. There is still natural steelhead production in both systems, WDFW reports the wild populations as reasonably healthy. I don't know if there is specific monitoring data or not, so I don't know if the wild runs sustain themselves, or if the wild runs are sustained because the native broodstock programs sustain them, or if it's some combination of the two.

In cases like this, the science hasn't kept up with the measures put into practice. Because of ESA listings and other changes in fish management, the science is trying to catch up, and better answers will become available to our questions about these kinds of projects. Meanwhile, it seems like the answer is, "it depends." There are strong indications that broodstock programs can activel recover depleted stocks in some cases, while in others it appears that the better alternative may have been to leave the captured broodstock in the river to spawn naturally.

If our intention is to aid fish populations, we ought to be open minded to the possibility that the outcome can swing either way, and be willing to act based on the performance of each program.

Sincerely,

Salmo g.

Randy: You're not wrong. Tournament merit aside, the big riff seems to be between the concept of conservation and fishing opportunity in general. The "tournament" is nothing more than the catalist that has forced discussion between those who would otherwise have their heads in the sand on the issue, including me. I think being able to communicate ideas in an open public forum such as this is the only way we can articulate between what is emotion and what is fact.

Moderating out the BS and forcing people to focus on intelegence is important. Shutting things down because it gets heated is the easy way out. Just my two cents.

Thank you Salmo, for another well written reply.

Not that my .02 is worth much but I have to agree with Sol...The lockdown button seems to be coming down pretty quick lately. Just because a Mod is getting emails from people, I dont know why the discussion can not continue. Why does it really matter if a thread is not going in the "right" direction. I've said it before, if you dont like it, dont read it.

For once i didnt say it and someone else did lets go to the judges with this one folks.....Judges??? .....and its unanimous !!!! i beleive that is a good straight forward honestly good post!!!!

Gosh i reread 1bighog's statement again and i just got a raging clue. I mena its so honest...and makes so much sense that i think someones pride might get hurt a bit here.

(CONTENT EDITED BY PARKER)

Super. I just moderated myself.

i like you parker without being Brokeback mountain...i like ya

I think people are just voicing their opinions. May be there needs to be a fishing forum for ages 18-55. Its not like people are out right fighting are they? may be instead of locking it move it to a special area for disgruntled people. my 2 cents

Parker wrote:

"(CONTENT EDITED BY PARKER)

Super. I just moderated myself."

Dude...I can't tell you how much that is making me laugh right now!

Soooo laughing...next!

Fish on...

Todd

I think that communication is great. I believe that name calling is immature and hasn't a place in communicating. Try communicating like you're talking to your Mom or daughter or grandson or wife. Pushing peoples buttons isn't communication. And as far as if you don't like it don't read it, as a moderator I have to read it and after 4 years you can "foretell" the future of some threads by how the communication is going.

If my memory serves me, it used to take a lot more for somebodies comment to get edited.

I agree, well said.

I agree completely, but if you look at the last three closed threads including the one you locked, there was no name calling. It's not like they all turned into "you're an idiot" "no, you are." There were some very distinct disagreements, but I thought that members could disagree. Maybe this forum should just be some watered down, vaginized, everybody get along or else place to share pictures and warm, fuzzy feelings.

I respect the job that the Mods do. I think it's a necessary job. My point was just that i believe everyone has been a bit quick on the button. Also, I wasn't refering to the mods "not reading it" if they dont like it, I was refering to the big cry babies that were emailing the mods telling them to lock it.

Again, not that it means much. I'm sure things will continue no matter what my opinion is, but i can still say it. Unless a mod deletes it.....

The individual who needs to be locked down is James Star aka pnwfisher with 5 post who is the one stirring the pot with nothing worth saying , talking about or listening too!!!!

Peace
Superfly

hard to argue with that superfly.....If you go out of your way to join up just to be an a$$hole without ever contributing anything positive, then I would have to say bye bye...

superfly, you can trust I a not jim starr. that is for certain.

however, I have not attacked anyone, not do I see the need to. i wanted to defend pete soverel for his conservation work, and also ask a few pertinent questions regarding the tournament.

the folks answered my questions so my time here is done, good day.