#892506 - 04/20/14 05:14 PM
Re: Puget Sound Hatchery Steelhead Petition
[Re: ripple]
|
Spawner
Registered: 03/21/06
Posts: 723
|
Any out of basin stock is detrimental to a system they are not native to. In basin stock is a different story. But in the end it comes down to Minimum escapement or carrying capacity, the two sciences, and we can't getwe the tribes or Wdfw to align to the one that will put more fish in our rivers. Manage for Maximum carrying capacity, anything over is surplus for harvest. This can be done with Wild or supplementation, but the thought process has to be changed
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#892508 - 04/20/14 05:27 PM
Re: Puget Sound Hatchery Steelhead Petition
[Re: ripple]
|
Smolt
Registered: 04/16/14
Posts: 77
Loc: Lake Samish
|
I'm with Double Haul on this one. Science based evidence in there! Chambers creek hatchery fish are detrimental to wild stocks period! Terms like "science-based evidence" are easy to throw around, but biologists in Puget Sound don't agree with you or double haul. The fact is, there isn't any evidence that suggests detrimental effects from these programs is or has caused declines of the native populations. The data that does exist shows extremely limited introgression to the point that no one can make any claims about detrimental effects. If you have evidence that biologists haven't seen yet, you should reveal it.
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#892510 - 04/20/14 05:27 PM
Re: Puget Sound Hatchery Steelhead Petition
[Re: TastySalmon]
|
Three Time Spawner
Registered: 03/07/99
Posts: 1558
Loc: Wherever I can swing for wild ...
|
I think the key word is science-driven management. If the science tells us that hatchery steelhead are a detriment to wild recovery are folks willing to accept it and support it without bias to their opportunity at the expense of wild steelhead or blinded to their economic gains by forsaking wild steelhead for hatchery fish. It all depends on your priorities. My personal priority will always be to put wild steelhead first, to me, there is no substitute and I want them in my future and my children's future. If I don't, I personally feel I would be selling my soul. So in the end, regardless of what I wrote at the top, yes I am pro wild steelhead and they come before hatchery steelhead in my preferences, but I will whack everyone of them I get my hands on. I hope I don't get the "elitist a sucks" emoticon, but if I do so be it.
If you cared about wild steelhead, the threat from hatchery steelhead should be on the bottom of your list of known problems preventing healthy natural steelhead populations. Perhaps you could put some effort into educating people about the effects of substantial loss of habitat and alteration, dams, dikes, development, agriculture, and logging. Also, when it can be proved that hatchery programs inhibit the performance of natural PS steelhead, please put me on the mailing list so I can get the evidence. Hatcheries are one of the 4 H's and has much of a culprit as the others you listed above. The good news is that we have better immediate control how we control hatcheries. The film Wild Reverence will a very big opportunity to educate the public on the plight of wild steelhead and the culprits standing in their way. I highly recommend a viewing when the opportunity presents itself. We can do better, if we allow our selves and have a little faith.
Edited by Double Haul (04/20/14 05:44 PM)
_________________________
Decisions and changes seldom occur by posting on Internet bulletin boards.
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#892511 - 04/20/14 05:33 PM
Re: Puget Sound Hatchery Steelhead Petition
[Re: Double Haul]
|
Smolt
Registered: 04/16/14
Posts: 77
Loc: Lake Samish
|
I think the key word is science-driven management. If the science tells us that hatchery steelhead are a detriment to wild recovery are folks willing to accept it and support it without bias to their opportunity at the expense of wild steelhead or blinded to their economic gains by forsaking wild steelhead for hatchery fish. It all depends on your priorities. My personal priority will always be to put wild steelhead first, to me, there is no substitute and I want them in my future and my children's future. If I don't, I personally feel I would be selling my soul. So in the end, regardless of what I wrote at the top, yes I am pro wild steelhead and they come before hatchery steelhead in my preferences, but I will whack everyone of them I get my hands on. I hope I don't get the "elitist a sucks" emoticon, but if I do so be it.
If you cared about wild steelhead, the threat from hatchery steelhead should be on the bottom of your list of known problems preventing healthy natural steelhead populations. Perhaps you could put some effort into educating people about the effects of substantial loss of habitat and alteration, dams, dikes, development, agriculture, and logging. Also, when it can be proved that hatchery programs inhibit the performance of natural PS steelhead, please put me on the mailing list so I can get the evidence. Hatcheries are one of the 4 H's and has much of a culprit as the others you listed above. The good news is that we have better immediate control how we control hatcheries. The film Wild Reverence will a very big opportunity to educate the public on the plight of wild steelhead and the culprits standing in their way. I highly recommend they view when the opportunity presents itself. We can do better, if we allow our selves and have a little faith. Are you actually suggesting hatcheries are as bad for native natural populations as dams and habitat loss? If you are, I'm a little surprised anyone could be that naive.
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#892512 - 04/20/14 05:41 PM
Re: Puget Sound Hatchery Steelhead Petition
[Re: TastySalmon]
|
Spawner
Registered: 03/21/06
Posts: 723
|
The Umpqua has a hatchery, and has 50K wild fish returning this year, and has met maximum carrying capacity for 30 years. It has the same habitat issues our streams face, but what it does not have are Tribes that insist on managing for minimum escapement, until you get the non selective fishing practices out of our waters and change the mind set from minimum to maximum, you will have no more then you have now. It' s not Hatcheries, it's the Greedy mindset of minimum Escapement, what say you DH
P.S we can not do better unless all parties are on board.
Edited by Met'lheadMatt (04/20/14 05:45 PM)
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#892513 - 04/20/14 05:48 PM
Re: Puget Sound Hatchery Steelhead Petition
[Re: Met'lheadMatt]
|
Three Time Spawner
Registered: 03/07/99
Posts: 1558
Loc: Wherever I can swing for wild ...
|
The four H's Hatcheries, Habitat, Hydropower and Harvest. No I can not attach exact percentages for each, but you should educate yourself to understand how they ALL effect recovery for wild steelhead and what can be done to minimize their impacts.
_________________________
Decisions and changes seldom occur by posting on Internet bulletin boards.
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#892522 - 04/20/14 07:13 PM
Re: Puget Sound Hatchery Steelhead Petition
[Re: Double Haul]
|
River Nutrients
Registered: 11/25/01
Posts: 2844
Loc: Marysville
|
In WFC' suit they claimed that recent average steelhead numbers across Puget sound are approximately 3% of what they were in 1900.
Any review of the available data clearly indicates that big players in that decline has been habitat loss (including hydro power impacts) and declining marine survival. In fact those two account for virtually all of that loss. NMFS at the time of the ESA listing indicated that harvest was not a significant problem. With the sweeping changes in hatchery practice over the last 30 years even hatchery/wild interactions over all have been reduced to very levels.
If we are really concern about the future of Puget Sound steelhead we can continue to nibble around the edges of remaining hatchery and harvest issues which even if completely eliminated would mean almost nothing for the wild steelhead resource or we can step up the plate and attempt to address those things that are limiting our steelhead fishing and any potential opportunities to fish in the future.
Curt
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#892565 - 04/21/14 01:39 PM
Re: Puget Sound Hatchery Steelhead Petition
[Re: Isaac]
|
King of the Beach
Registered: 12/11/02
Posts: 5207
Loc: Carkeek Park
|
Saw this on another more informative site and thought that I would post it here Which site would that be?
_________________________
Go Dawgs! Founding Member - 2023 Pink Plague Opposition Party #coholivesmatter
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#892571 - 04/21/14 02:41 PM
Re: Puget Sound Hatchery Steelhead Petition
[Re: Smalma]
|
River Nutrients
Registered: 10/22/09
Posts: 3020
Loc: University Place and Whidbey I...
|
In WFC' suit they claimed that recent average steelhead numbers across Puget sound are approximately 3% of what they were in 1900.
Any review of the available data clearly indicates that big players in that decline has been habitat loss (including hydro power impacts) and declining marine survival. In fact those two account for virtually all of that loss. NMFS at the time of the ESA listing indicated that harvest was not a significant problem. With the sweeping changes in hatchery practice over the last 30 years even hatchery/wild interactions over all have been reduced to very levels.
If we are really concern about the future of Puget Sound steelhead we can continue to nibble around the edges of remaining hatchery and harvest issues which even if completely eliminated would mean almost nothing for the wild steelhead resource or we can step up the plate and attempt to address those things that are limiting our steelhead fishing and any potential opportunities to fish in the future.
Curt
Profound! Thank you. And, (gasp), I have to agree with Todd on this one. Stopping hatchery plants would have little if any positive impact on wild fish populations in P.S. (based upon information I have read) and would effectively end sport fishing for steelhead. Once that stakeholder group moves on to other endeavors good luck in generating the necessary interest/support to fix the real problems.
_________________________
Remember to immediately record your catch or you may become the catch!
It's the person who has done nothing who is sure nothing can be done. (Ewing)
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#892577 - 04/21/14 03:47 PM
Re: Puget Sound Hatchery Steelhead Petition
[Re: Larry B]
|
River Nutrients
Registered: 11/21/07
Posts: 7438
Loc: Olema,California,Planet Earth
|
Stopping the planting of hatchery steelhead would have a significant benefit to the early-returning wild fish. The simple presence of "harvestable" hatchery fish allows the co-mingled wild fish to C&R'd or killed in gillnets.
Even if there was absolutely no genetic or ecological conflicts wild fish will still die.
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#892579 - 04/21/14 04:22 PM
Re: Puget Sound Hatchery Steelhead Petition
[Re: Carcassman]
|
River Nutrients
Registered: 10/22/09
Posts: 3020
Loc: University Place and Whidbey I...
|
Stopping the planting of hatchery steelhead would have a significant benefit to the early-returning wild fish. The simple presence of "harvestable" hatchery fish allows the co-mingled wild fish to C&R'd or killed in gillnets.
Even if there was absolutely no genetic or ecological conflicts wild fish will still die. So you are in favor of no C&R until wild fish are recovered to some as yet to be established level? Just to be clear..... And, you haven't responded to the idea that having no fishery will rapidly deplete the already thinning ranks of steelhead advocates thus further undermining recovery efforts.
_________________________
Remember to immediately record your catch or you may become the catch!
It's the person who has done nothing who is sure nothing can be done. (Ewing)
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#892584 - 04/21/14 05:04 PM
Re: Puget Sound Hatchery Steelhead Petition
[Re: Backtrollin]
|
River Nutrients
Registered: 07/11/04
Posts: 3113
Loc: Bothell, Wa
|
Carcassman, have you ever fished any of these rivers?
I have fished them for 30+ years and have caught maybe 7 natives prior to Jan 15th. There has not been an "early run" in my lifetime.
If not for hatchery fish in these systems a whole bunch of us on this board would have never gotten hooked on Steelhead.
I've seen at least three 20+ wild fish on the Snohomish system prior to New Years Day. If you've been fishing these rivers for 30+ years you remember the "Flagpole" hole filling up with nates in Dec. And those weren't little nates.
_________________________
"Government does not solve problems; it subsidizes them." Ronald Reagan
"The trouble with Socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money." Margaret Thatcher.
"How fortunate for governments that the people they administer don't think." Adolf Hitler
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#892593 - 04/21/14 06:54 PM
Re: Puget Sound Hatchery Steelhead Petition
[Re: Backtrollin]
|
River Nutrients
Registered: 11/21/07
Posts: 7438
Loc: Olema,California,Planet Earth
|
C&R is not the problem. Nets are. When I actually worked traps and studied wild winter steelhead in western WA we had at least, I believe, 30% of the spawning done by March 15.
Wild winter steelhead, as was mentioned before, formerly had good returns in November, December, January. They had (and the current strong populations still do) have significant (>30%) repeat spawners, they used spawn at least from January to July. We will not recover them until we can get the stocks back in that direction. Those segments of the run were there so that the run could be successful. Without them, no success.
What we have going here is what is known as shifting baseline. The "old" guys, who fished in 30s, 40s, and 50s have a view of the when and how many significantly different from anglers whose memory may go back to the 80s or 90s.
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#892595 - 04/21/14 07:29 PM
Re: Puget Sound Hatchery Steelhead Petition
[Re: Carcassman]
|
Carcass
Registered: 11/30/09
Posts: 2286
|
C&R is not the problem. Nets are. 1) If the object is not to kill wild fish, then they are each a problem in and of themselves. There was a discussion on here several years back where the take produced by catch and release enabled the tribes to net their share of steelhead on the OP. 2) If that is true, then CnR not only kills wild fish but then enables others to kill wild fish also. You would think that these organizations that want to protect wild fish would not like that at all.
_________________________
The world will not be destroyed by those that are evil, but by those who watch them without doing anything.- Albert Einstein
No you can’t have my rights---I’m still using them
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#892598 - 04/21/14 08:01 PM
Re: Puget Sound Hatchery Steelhead Petition
[Re: Lucky Louie]
|
River Nutrients
Registered: 11/25/01
Posts: 2844
Loc: Marysville
|
Broodbuster/backtrollin
Lots of fond memories of the good fishing at the School house/Flag pole during the 1960s and 70s.
I recall well those "wild " three salt fish we caught in the Snoqualmie and other PS rivers starting as early as Thanksgiving weekend. I did however recall that many of those fish had stubbed dorsal fins and they disappeared in the mid-1980s when the hatchery fish were all massed marked (fin clipped). Still caught lots of 3 salt fish in that same time of year but they all had missing adipose fins. While I was never fortunate to catch one of those 20 pounders I did see several caught in December that were hatchery fish.
Curt
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#892733 - 04/23/14 09:56 AM
Re: Puget Sound Hatchery Steelhead Petition
[Re: Double Haul]
|
Repeat Spawner
Registered: 12/06/07
Posts: 1388
|
No thanks, I prefer wild steelhead I do too! I just want to fish my local rivers. I will fill it out. South Puget Sound wild runs will never recover enough in the future to fish on anyway.
_________________________
"Life moves pretty fast. If you don't stop and look around once in a while, you could miss it.” – Ferris Bueller. Don't let the old man in!
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#892765 - 04/23/14 03:00 PM
Re: Puget Sound Hatchery Steelhead Petition
[Re: RUNnGUN]
|
Three Time Spawner
Registered: 03/07/99
Posts: 1558
Loc: Wherever I can swing for wild ...
|
R&G, The follow up post to that statement.
I think the key word is science-driven management. If the science tells us that hatchery steelhead are a detriment to wild recovery are folks willing to accept that and support it without bias to their opportunity at the expense of wild steelhead or blinded to their economic gains by forsaking wild steelhead for hatchery fish. It all depends on your priorities. My personal priority will always be to put wild steelhead first, to me, there is no substitute and I want them in my future and my children's future. If I don't, I personally feel I would be selling my soul. So in the end, regardless of what I wrote at the top, yes, I am pro wild steelhead and they come before hatchery steelhead in my preferences, but I will whack every hatchery fish I get my hands on to get them out of the system. I hope I don't get the "elitist sucks" , emoticon, but if I do so be it.
Edited by Double Haul (04/23/14 03:01 PM)
_________________________
Decisions and changes seldom occur by posting on Internet bulletin boards.
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#892768 - 04/23/14 03:30 PM
Re: Puget Sound Hatchery Steelhead Petition
[Re: Double Haul]
|
Fry
Registered: 10/07/11
Posts: 23
Loc: Duvall
|
R&G, The follow up post to that statement.
I think the key word is science-driven management. If the science tells us that hatchery steelhead are a detriment to wild recovery are folks willing to accept that and support it without bias to their opportunity at the expense of wild steelhead or blinded to their economic gains by forsaking wild steelhead for hatchery fish. It all depends on your priorities. My personal priority will always be to put wild steelhead first, to me, there is no substitute and I want them in my future and my children's future. If I don't, I personally feel I would be selling my soul. So in the end, regardless of what I wrote at the top, yes, I am pro wild steelhead and they come before hatchery steelhead in my preferences, but I will whack every hatchery fish I get my hands on to get them out of the system. I hope I don't get the "elitist sucks" , emoticon, but if I do so be it. Science driven would mean you need to quantify the harm that hatchery steelhead do to wild steelhead first. Then we decide if that harm to the wild stocks is worth the fishing opportunity provided. Let's say for sake of argument PS hatchery steelhead releases depress wild steelhead returns by 5%, is it worth losing an entire fishery to improve the wild fish run by 5%? When words like "harm" and "detrimental" are used without numbers it sparks emotions in people, and science should be devoid of emotion. We shouldn't take drastic steps to "improve" wild steelhead returns, if we don't know how much they will improve by and at what cost. The WFC gets paid to do lots of fish habitat "improvement" projects but if those projects do not produce any additional fish, they are a waste of money. I also did not see any spawner counts before/after their projects were completed, so we have no benchmark to see if they were cost effective or successful.
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
1 registered (Excitable Bob),
483
Guests and
2
Spiders online. |
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
11498 Members
16 Forums
63783 Topics
645418 Posts
Max Online: 3001 @ 01/28/20 02:48 PM
|
|
|