And therein lies the problem. Short term gain is what has ruled the roost in salmon "management" for the last 150 years. Every generation of user/stakeholder has successfully played that card. It has been used to justify the heel dragging that has prevented genuine salmon conservation to maintain populations, never mind actually recoverying them to previous abundance.

The hatchery model of simply making more fish is unsustainable and the sooner folks figure that out the better. Continually pouring our limited resources into the bottomless pit of artifically churning out more factory-made fish is foolhardy. What is the financial return on the investment? In present-day dollars it costs us WAY more to produce a hatchery CR spring king (and manage its harvest within the constraints of the ESA) than the economic return derived from the harvest of that same fish, sport and commercial combined! The money is going the WRONG direction.

In my own business, there are things that I have to pay for on a recurring monthly basis to keep it up and running... utilities, taxes, maintenance and repairs... those fixed operating expenses are the cost of doing business. Then there are the big ticket capital expenses... a new building, a new exam room, the new piece of diagnostic equipment, the new laser, the next major software upgrade, you get the picture. That is discretionary investment that hopefully 1) makes my business operate more efficiently or 2) significantly improves the standard of patient care. If a capital investment does neither of those things, I ain't buyin' .... the investment will NEVER pay for itself. It doesn't make good financial sense and it doesn't make good business sense.

If WDFW/ODFW were a real business, and the "business goal" of our fish managers was to conserve our natural resources and ensure the sustainable abundance of fish populations, they would get an "F" on their annual report, and the stockholders would have a fit! If the stockholders had any brains, they would get a new CEO with a new strategic plan. If that were not possible, they would dump the stock and invest in another company altogether.

We are the stockholders folks, and a long line of CEO's have been pushing the WRONG strategic plan. The fish dollars spent are so heavily weighted toward artificial propagation. History has shown that it is a capital investment that does NOT pay for itself and has no hope of ever generating a profit. What hatcheries have done is strapped the agencies with unsustainable monthly operating expenses to keep their fish factories running.

Had those same dollars been wisely invested over the past 150 years, we would have naturally-produced fish coming out of our ears every year FOR FREE. Instead we are strapped with the unsustainable costs of operating the biggest network of fish hatcheries on the planet.

How long do you keep pouring money into an investment that's literally tanking. Do you keep buying more of that crappy stock or more of that under-performing mutual fund just because it ticks upward before the closing bell a couple times a month.... foolishly hoping that one day it'll finally turn around for a sustained rally? Is a 130 years too long?

That idea would work fine on rivers and basins that actually have "true Native genetics"

What rivers have true genetic stock? does anyone know?

But how do you tell the difference between a wild fish (missing ad-clip) and a true native fish. Both have an adipose fin so what? What we need to do is to obtain and test the genetics of all of our fish to see if "true native genetics" are still swimming in our rivers.

I think this is what Keith was trying to say several pages back.

[quote=fishNphysician In present-day dollars it costs us WAY more to produce a hatchery CR spring king (and manage its harvest within the constraints of the ESA) than the economic return derived from the harvest of that same fish, sport and commercial combined! The money is going the WRONG direction. [/quote]


There inlies the real question. Are these ESA listed fish True Native genetic stock or are they just non-clipped hatchery fish?

Somebody tell me please how many rivers above Bonneville, The Dalles, McNary, ect have true genetic Spring Chinook stock today or 150 years ago?

Maybe the ESA listing is just another way to govern the people. I would hate to think that the ESA listing are allowing Hatchery stock (mis ad-clip fish) to the spawning beds to interact and fight for habitat as most would say is the problem.

Also Doc, ever fish the Cowlitz during July the last 7 years. pretty good fishing Huh? This is a prime example of how hatchery fish make for an excellent stellhead fishery because of massive hatchery plants.

Like I said earlier there are 2 sides, Pro-hatchery fisherman and Pro Wild-Fish fisherman. Don't see how you can have both.

It's largely what I was trying to say but what do you test the Genetics against?? There was never genetic studies back when white man first started slaughtering the fish...

Keith

I was just talking with Joe Little about this the other day keith. yes the WDFW does have some genetic studies from back in the day especially on the Cowlitz and Lewis. They (people controlling the $$$) just don't want you to know it.

It took almost 2 years to get a genetic study on the Lower Cowlitz just to see if there are any upper Cowlitz Basin stock spawning in the lower river due to lack of passage at Mossyrock. The new FERC agreement says there is thus the decrease in hatchery plants and zero fish recycling. Its all about the $$$ and fish are expensive.

The same thing is coming on the Lewis my friend. The license there is up next year and just watch, a true genetic native stock is going to be in need of rescue there also causing decreased hatchery plants and zero recycling of salmon and steelhead.

http://www.friendsofthecowlitz.org/wdfw_research_proposal.htm

James and I participated in a DNA collection study 2 or 3 years ago for the WDFW on some of the SW WA tribs. But to my understanding the samples are still on file and haven't been used for any sort of studies?? It's probably very similar to the one they're doing on the Cowlitz..

Keith

Appreciate the well thought input from you guys on this thread, and understand your concerns with buzz-word groups, you raise many good questions that others would like to explore......sorry to say it though, that most of the users here are a perfect example of sportsman, divided and uneducated, just wanting to point fingers and bitch, that is why I have chosen to join forces with the most powerful and longlasting fisheries group on the columbia, anybody wanna buy some eggs???????????????????????

I read the first two pages of this ridiculous thread, and couldn't get any farther...I thought I'd just skip to the end and leave a comment, one that I am 100% certain would in no way change if I had read the entire thread...

The level of uneducated "opinion" that is based on little more than fantasy should sooner or later stop surprising me...with the easy access to actual facts now just a mouse click away, and easy access to managers and policymakers just a meeting away, I am again amazed at how aggressively ignorant at least 70% of the posters in this thread are.

For at least the 100th time there are dudes saying that there are no "true native fish" left...and as with the other 99 times, they are utterly wrong...and even if they are shown the truth, they put their hands over their ears and just yell "Hatcheries!!" really loud...repeatedly.

That's just one of the many issues here that are being discussed by folks who clearly haven't done one iota of research...it's almost not even worth having a conversation about anything but the best way to cutplug a herring, because anything more challenging than that is almost impossible to discuss in any meaningful way whatsoever.

Carry on...I'm sure we can get this one to 12 pages, too.

Fish on...

Todd

You bet!! If you get a net boat give me a call this Fall, I'll give ya $2 a pound if they're fresh cut with no blood and good sized mature eggs...

Keith

you are first on the list, never did get too far with my Fisheries Degree....

Gee Todd looks like you made it 13 pages!

Current population genetic data are just one tool in the tool box to help identify units for conservation or answer specific questions like hybridization etc. The ultimate questions remain unchanged. The best conservation strategy is one that aims to preserve the range of adaptiveness in a species in order to preserve and maintain its evolutionary options. Data on the genetics, migration timing, egg size, fat content etc are tools to help with the unchanged questions. Debates between wild or hatch need to be performed in this context. Ultimately for salmon habitat is the largest factor currently.

Huh???

Sounds like I'm back in USCG Masters Class memorizing Buoys, Flags and symbols.

Jerry......Are yous a talkin about them there rulzes of the road??

One thing that can't be denied about fisherman is their passion about the sport!

gillnets has nothing to do with the eventual commercial harvest of hatchery fish. Gillnets are the tools, not the motivation for hatchery fish. HF are the result of overharvest and general decline, in order perpetuate a business.
Fish traps allow that business to continue and thus the demand of hatchery fish may not change. In rivers that have no native population, it may increase the demand for hatchery production, to offset reductions in other areas, where HF are found to be a burden on the native population.

If commercial harvest were illiminated completely, politicians would still support hatchery fish production, because without it, most of the tackle shops and boat dealers and most of the guides would be gone. Oh, i forgot all the government jobs as well. When is the last time government laid off workers?

I suspect that any reductions in hatchery programs would be the result of sustainable native fishery or the results of a conclusion that hatchery fish are impeding the recovery of wild fish. In either case, we are probably looking at a river by river decision.

Dat be Dem Boss!

Ok I found this over on another BB. Quite interesting to the topic here that spans 14 pages. Is this an official response?


NWPhandler wrote:I have been authorized to post this, hope it answers some questions.>



How much more of a plan does there need to be than a statement that we are going after selective harvest in the lower Columbia River......thats our first plan, it occured inside a year and it is funded. We are doing this so that the billions of dollars spent on hatcheries, hydro projects and habitat may have a chance to actually work. The four H s were always talked about but nobody has touched harvest while spending and spending on the other three.

I believe that our Puget Sound chapters and others will devise a plan for our areas also, funded by the banquets and donations. Remember that the CCA is YOUUUUUUUUU

Chuck G
CCA member
http://www.ccapnw.org

OH...............

Now I feel better.

And to think I was worried for nothing...