Check

 

Defiance Boats!

LURECHARGE!

THE PP OUTDOOR FORUMS

Kast Gear!

Power Pro Shimano Reels G Loomis Rods

  Willie boats! Puffballs!

 

Three Rivers Marine

 

 
Page 2 of 3 < 1 2 3 >
Topic Options
Rate This Topic
#911560 - 10/29/14 11:45 PM Re: WFC is taking some heat from the Tribes [Re: Salmo g.]
Carcassman Offline
River Nutrients

Registered: 11/21/07
Posts: 7411
Loc: Olema,California,Planet Earth
I believe it, But managers here don't acknowledge the need for the nutrients. Oh well....................

Top
#911589 - 10/30/14 10:51 AM Re: WFC is taking some heat from the Tribes [Re: Todd]
geljockey Offline
Juvenile at Sea

Registered: 11/17/06
Posts: 143
Loc: Olympia, WA
One thing that I find a little flawed with the WFC in my opinion is that they are making a comparison between a coastal river and a Puget Sound river.

Top
#911594 - 10/30/14 11:54 AM Re: WFC is taking some heat from the Tribes [Re: geljockey]
Todd Offline
Dick Nipples

Registered: 03/08/99
Posts: 28170
Loc: Seattle, Washington USA
Comparing anything about the Umpqua to the Skagit is a downright tenuous connection at best...but mostly just laughable.

Fish on...

Todd
_________________________


Team Flying Super Ditch Pickle


Top
#911615 - 10/30/14 03:36 PM Re: WFC is taking some heat from the Tribes [Re: Todd]
Smalma Offline
River Nutrients

Registered: 11/25/01
Posts: 2844
Loc: Marysville
Todd -
You are correct of course - it would have been a much better comparison with other Salish system.

Maybe comparing the wild steelhead population trend with a system where the hatchery release had been more or less constant. An excellent example would be the Green - oops even though the hatchery releases have been constant over the last 30 years the population trend looks much the same.

Maybe a better comparison would have been with a system where hatchery steelhead releases were ended a couple decades ago. A couple good examples come to mind - the Cedar or Nisqually. Again even with the termination of hatchery releases the wild steelhead trend continued downward much like the Skagit fish.

Heck maybe we need to look a little further afield to Salish sea systems on the East side of Vancouver Island where steelhead were not being planted in the 1970s and 80s or where the hatchery programs ended. Maybe the best monitored system would be the Keogh river where until recently when a "rescue hatchery" program was started had not received hatchery plants.. Another oops - the wild steelhead population monitor from the late 1980s until 2010 look much the same as the Skagit.

One might be tempted to conclude that for Salish Sea steelhead that the presence of hatchery winter steelhead or the planting levels of those fish (at least at the various levels seen in the region) are at best minor bit players in driving Salish Sea wild steelhead abundance. Of course that would not make very good headlines.

Curt

Top
#911618 - 10/30/14 03:41 PM Re: WFC is taking some heat from the Tribes [Re: Smalma]
Todd Offline
Dick Nipples

Registered: 03/08/99
Posts: 28170
Loc: Seattle, Washington USA
Originally Posted By: Smalma

One might be tempted to conclude that for Salish Sea steelhead that the presence of hatchery winter steelhead or the planting levels of those fish (at least at the various levels seen in the region) are at best minor bit players in driving Salish Sea wild steelhead abundance. Of course that would not make very good headlines.


This.

Fish on...

Todd
_________________________


Team Flying Super Ditch Pickle


Top
#911626 - 10/30/14 04:07 PM Re: WFC is taking some heat from the Tribes [Re: Todd]
TastySalmon Offline
Smolt

Registered: 04/16/14
Posts: 77
Loc: Lake Samish
Originally Posted By: Todd
I can't argue with that at all...arguing in favor of studying a broodstock program on the Skagit is the most ridiculous, and calling out the water intake diversion at Tokul as an ESA violation, then challenging WDFW's permit application to fix it...well, that's just a straight up crock'o'shitt and makes them look like idiots worthy of ridicule.

They do, however, address habitat issues all the time and I suspect that the recent attacks on hatchery fish are actually a backdoor attempt to get everyone to focus on habitat issues.

Fish on...

Todd



Todd,

I attended the senate testimonies earlier this year, as did others on PP.

WFC's testimony made the clear and indisputable claim that habitat is not the issue for steelhead declines. In fact, they cited the Scott and Gill 2008 report but then blatantly lied about the estimation of habitat loss in Washington. WFC claimed that 79% of the habitat is intact, yet there has been a 97% decrease in wild steelhead abundance in Puget Sound.

The video of of the testimony is available here. Fast forward to approximately minute 4:15 and see for your self. I don't think that any group who would write that testimony is secretly trying to backdoor habitat issues into the focus.

Top
#911628 - 10/30/14 04:28 PM Re: WFC is taking some heat from the Tribes [Re: TastySalmon]
Smalma Offline
River Nutrients

Registered: 11/25/01
Posts: 2844
Loc: Marysville
TastySalmon -

That 2008 report that Glasgow (WFC science director) cited can be found at -

http://wdfw.wa.gov/publications/00150/wdfw00150.pdf

That 79% can be found in table 7-10. What that 79% refers to is the amount of historical habitat that steelhead have access to (waters not cut of by dams, etc.).

From the same report (in section 3.9) some may interested in looking at finding #3.1. There the authors state that for the 42 Washington steelhead population assessed the average productivity loss was pegged at 83%. Interesting that WFC choice to cite the info from table 7-10 but ignored the productivity information provided later in the same report.

If one considers that average productivity loss coupled with recent marine survival drops (for the Salish Sea area that survival decline has been 80% or more) one arrives quickly at that 97% decrease in wild steelhead abundances. Wonder where the most effect focus on recovery activities might be?

Curt

Top
#911643 - 10/30/14 06:07 PM Re: WFC is taking some heat from the Tribes [Re: Smalma]
milt roe Offline
Spawner

Registered: 01/22/06
Posts: 925
Loc: tacoma
Near as I can tell the loss of habitat productivity estimate they cited was based largely on opinion and conjecture, using subjective ratings of good, fair, and poor to characterize a variety of conditions. How anyone can extrapolate numeric estimates of habitat productivity loss from those kinds of opinions, I don't know. I will see if I can find the unpublished, non-peer reviewed Smith report they cite and review what they did. But I sure wouldn't put any faith at all in those numbers either.

Top
#911647 - 10/30/14 06:21 PM Re: WFC is taking some heat from the Tribes [Re: milt roe]
Carcassman Offline
River Nutrients

Registered: 11/21/07
Posts: 7411
Loc: Olema,California,Planet Earth
Dammit Smalma. Putting actual data into the argument screws up the religious beliefs.

Top
#911667 - 10/30/14 09:31 PM Re: WFC is taking some heat from the Tribes [Re: Carcassman]
milt roe Offline
Spawner

Registered: 01/22/06
Posts: 925
Loc: tacoma
Thats funny. Arguments on all sides here seem to be more faith-based than factual. Not a lot of science presented so far. On any side. Putting any faith in the 83% number especially. At least WFC recognized the uncertainties in that one. Go ahead folks. Argue your beliefs. Cite your favorite numbers. We will solve the problem here on the internet.

Top
#911691 - 10/31/14 10:37 AM Re: WFC is taking some heat from the Tribes [Re: milt roe]
Smalma Offline
River Nutrients

Registered: 11/25/01
Posts: 2844
Loc: Marysville
Milt -
I recognize the uncertainty in the so-call "science" used these debates and it will always be the case there will be some softness in the various numbers if for no other reason there will be uncertainty in the starting point (historic conditions). That in itself does not undermine the value of looking at that information though as you point out it is important to recognize that softness. Though to be fair that consideration needs to be applied to all sides of the debate.

I thought it was appropriate to bring to the discussion information that used the same source document that WFC (thought its science director's testimony) brought to the debate.

((One additional comment. The Skagit winter steelhead population and planting trends shown in the link from the first post on this thread seems to indicate Skagit will steelhead will be going extinct (cross the zero axis line) at some time in the quarter century or so. Again from the same 2008 report information from Table 8-B2 (second annex of chapter 8) shows that the risk of the Skagit wild winter steelhead going extinct in the next 100 years is ZERO)).

A MAJOR EDIT - In the above paragraph I miss-read the graph. It is the harvest line that is declining and not the wild population line - I have left the original statement unedited other than placing in double (( )) to avoid any confusion.

Curt


Edited by Smalma (10/31/14 11:02 AM)

Top
#911704 - 10/31/14 02:31 PM Re: WFC is taking some heat from the Tribes [Re: Smalma]
stonefish Online   content
King of the Beach

Registered: 12/11/02
Posts: 5203
Loc: Carkeek Park
I'll site my favorite number, 30....as in April 30th.
Call it factual, faith based or whatever you'd like.
I'd like to someday be able to again fish for Puget sound steelhead on that day.
_________________________
Go Dawgs!
Founding Member - 2023 Pink Plague Opposition Party
#coholivesmatter

Top
#912078 - 11/03/14 09:41 PM Re: WFC is taking some heat from the Tribes [Re: stonefish]
Moravec Offline


Registered: 03/27/08
Posts: 1045
Loc: Snoqualmie WA/Cordova AK
Regarding our fisheries' management, everyone has their own opinion. I truly believe that the tribes have such a strong political pull that they are our biggest ally to fight nonsensical conservationists that are pushing a zero hatchery policy.

Degraded habitat in-river, polluted estuaries, the need for open fisheries for both tribal and non-tribal anglers... we need hatchery fish in Puget Sound. Period.

Those fighting the hatchery program need to shift their efforts and use their funds to purchase critical habitat, clean up the Puget Sound, remove dikes, restore estuaries, and plant some fracking trees!
_________________________
God Bless America!
riptidefish.com

Top
#912155 - 11/04/14 11:30 AM Re: WFC is taking some heat from the Tribes [Re: Moravec]
TastySalmon Offline
Smolt

Registered: 04/16/14
Posts: 77
Loc: Lake Samish
Originally Posted By: Moravec
Those fighting the hatchery program need to shift their efforts and use their funds to purchase critical habitat, clean up the Puget Sound, remove dikes, restore estuaries, and plant some fracking trees!


Your suggestions would likely have positive results and it would be great to see movement towards these improvements.

Unfortunately, WFC, its membership, and other groups with similar intentions share an ideology. Similar to religious fundamentalists, their decisions and views are based more upon faith and ideals than cognizant perception, fact, or rational judgement.

Though WFC has received grants to implement small habitat or passage improvements, they do not believe that habitat limitations on a broad scale are responsible for wild salmon or steelhead declines.

Top
#912158 - 11/04/14 11:59 AM Re: WFC is taking some heat from the Tribes [Re: TastySalmon]
Salmo g. Offline
River Nutrients

Registered: 03/08/99
Posts: 13520
Somewhat along these lines, I read this article yesterday that Bill McMillan wrote for the Native Fish Society and it was reprinted in the Osprey. There is plenty in there that I take exception to, but I think many of you will find it an interesting read.

There Can Be No Wild Steelhead Recovery Until We Get Rid of Hatchery Steelhead Period!
April 9, 2014
By Bill McMillan

This is just a reminder about wild fish conservation strategy successes and the part that Catch and Release (C&R) has played. We have long had C&R as a failed basis for wild steelhead recoveries in Puget Sound and other areas of the Northwest as a stand-alone management mechanism. The one most prominent example of a state fish managing agency that has most broadly achieved recovery of wild stream-bred salmonids in the Lower 48 is Montana (albeit after widespread losses of its original westslope cutthroat, grayling, and bull trout populations after early hatchery introductions of rainbow and brown trout). C&R of itself would have had no greater effect for Montana trout streams than has occurred in Puget Sound for steelhead if hatchery fish plants had not been halted. The basic step to recovery is GET RID OF HATCHERY STEELHEAD. PERIOD. Once that occurs then we can determine the angling management options. C&R means nothing unless we first make the necessary biological steps on which to base fish recovery. This is the message all U.S. salmonid anglers, managers, and scientists should have long ago learned from the Montana experiment and its lasting results.

I would also remind that Montana trout streams such as the Big Hole River still provide exceptional wild trout fishing despite habitat degradation through irrigation withdrawals in late summer/fall that greatly diminish stream flows. Would the wild trout populations do better if that did not occur? Of course. But it remains that degraded habitat, in this case a dewatered stream, can still provide considerable productivity of wild trout of large sizes in Montana. Wild fish somehow manage to adapt to what remains in a surprising breadth of instances.

The Great Lakes is an example of streams being hammered by logging beginning 200 or more years ago, and where streams often still have great silt loads as the long road to forest recovery continues – if at all. Despite this, early hatchery releases of steelhead in the late 1800s and early 1900s have resulted in those original plants making natural adaptations over time. Diverse and productive wild populations have evolved as a result. In those areas where hatchery introductions have not subsequently occurred in the streams that these fish naturally adapted to, they remain highly productive (more common in the Canadian region than that of the U.S.). However, where subsequent hatchery plants occurred, the wild populations began to fail with overall reduction in Great Lakes productivity. Below is a summary from Negus 1996):


* Peak catch per effort for steelhead in Lake Superior occurred in the 1960s prior to intensive hatchery stocking; from the 1970s onward catch per effort declined despite the annual stocking of millions of hatchery fry; this result correlates with a general decline in wild stocks when supplemented by hatchery fish in Minnesota waters (Negus 1996)

Ironically, now far outside their native range, wild Pacific salmon and steelhead return with broadly diverse life histories and large numbers to those Great Lakes streams managed for wild production without hatchery plants. This has occurred as wild Pacific salmon and steelhead in their native range along the Lower 48’s West Coast and interior have lost their breadth of former diversity, have lost their former abundance, and in most of their range are now extinct or ESA listed. This has occurred on the West Coast in concert with increasing use of hatcheries. This is despite remaining high quality habitat in large wilderness areas of Idaho and Washington’s Olympic National Park, and with most of the stream basins of Washington and Oregon having habitat that is at least the equal of Great Lakes streams.

Regarding C&R, in highly intensive fisheries where steelhead (or Atlantic salmon) are caught and released multiple times there is increasing evidence that C&R alone may contribute to loss of salmon and/or steelhead productivity. C&R, once considered a silver bullet for recovery of wild fish populations, will also likely need regulation. There is no free lunch for long. Conservation always has been and always will be based on human responsibility. The word conserve means to prevent loss – i.e. to limit what we do that leads to loss. This requires ever increasing self-examination and resulting self restraint in direct proportion to increasing human population in order to minimize further loss of natural resources to draw from. Bottom line, do we want a future for fisheries or not?

* “The real truth is that sport is made by and exists in just three things – tradition, ethics, and restraint. Reduce, remove, or destroy these and nothing useful is left. Most of the arguments about harvesting the run or taking the crop makes a measure of sense – some more, some less – if one accepts the premise: that the main purpose of sport is killing. Roderick Haig-Brown, Fisherman’s Summer, 1959.

The oldest hatchery steelhead program on the Pacific Coast, dating to the 1920s, is at Chambers Creek near Tacoma, Washington. A characteristic of hatcheries is that as they age returns diminish. It is little known but not surprising; the steelhead at Chambers Creek went extinct in 1997. This is the inevitable result of increasing domestication over ensuing generations. Hatcheries are the answer? Think again. And when these traits are passed on to a wild population, as found to have occurred in Forks Creek research in Washington. What then? There is a great loss in wild productivity. The Puget Sound example is pretty clear – wild steelhead threatened with extinction, hatchery fish a common no show, fishing closures to secure hatchery broodstock needs, and steelhead fishing seasons once five months long now reduced to two.

Combined tribal and sport fisheries that formerly harvested 5,000-18,000 wild steelhead in the 1950s in the Nooksack, Puyallup, and Skagit are today rivers with hatchery plants of 100s of thousands of smolts and resulting harvests reduced to 500-1,500 steelhead – 10% or less of what wild steelhead provided 60 years ago. This great loss has been within my lifetime. If you have a child one year old today, where will Puget Sound steelhead be when that child is 60 years old given this rate of decline: Functionally, if not totally, extinct.

How did the state of Montana get to where it is today? Montana fish managers took it on themselves to educate the public once the Vincent studies came out. Did Montana anglers welcome elimination of hatchery plants back then? No, they were initially as pro-hatchery as anywhere, but thanks to Montana informing the anglers with the facts and figures, they created an acceptance within the angling community. Is Washington doing this? Is Oregon? No. Instead fish managers in both states continue to promote the belief that they can only sustain themselves and the fishery with hatcheries and the funding they bring to the state. (See Steven Hawley’s comment below) As a friend once told me, they have no notion how to let go of a failed Business Plan and create a new one, based on the available science that works. A successful Business Plan for ODFW and WDFW will have to be consistent with law and science to address the causes of decline and extinction of native wild salmonids rather than replacing them with fish farming technology.

Back in the mid-1990s a Washington program called “Jobs for the Environment” began to retrain former out of work loggers and timber employees to work on fish habitat recovery. This occurred due to need to protect spotted owl habitat from further elimination of old growth forests that resulted from the Reagan administration’s accelerated logging on National Forests in the 1980s, and which further reduced the quality of fish habitat as well. Wild Fish Conservancy used this program to hire a number of its earliest field employees. This is the sort of investment that needs to occur in both Oregon and Washington fish managing agencies – retraining people to work in fisheries for what science indicates is needed for a recovery.

First thing when you wake up in the morning is to make sure your pants are on with the zipper in front, not in the back. Chances are a bad accident will occur if not. Oregon and Washington fish managing agencies have been walking around for 50 years with their pants on backwards. Fish managing agencies can't provide a sustainable fish resource future without retooling themselves into habitat and monitoring-based agencies. We have to design recovery on understanding the productive relationship between needed escapement (jobs, jobs, jobs in monitoring) and evaluation of habitat protection and recovery priorities (jobs, jobs, jobs in habitat fields) that will allow wild fish to continue to be productive. There is great need for a new employment vision by fish managing agencies that have been blind to seeing it any other way than for hatcheries. There is absolutely no use in providing these agencies with continued funding that they will only continue to try and divert into "make fish" programs with a hatcheries. Once they develop a new Business Plan for responsible operation and to effectively educate the public, then is the time to invest in what will provide a recovery future. Not before.

In Washington and Oregon all that is presently in place from which to try and educate the public is through the public itself – through conservation organizations, angling organizations, and sometimes angling magazines. However, it can be a two-edged sword. “Conservation” is a loose term when it comes to organizations and can be a misnomer built on increasing human use of resources rather than limiting use of resources (the word conservation means to protect from loss, or to preserve). It is often difficult to untangle the motives of all involved to determine if they are more focused on self interests, or if they are legitimately focused on finding a route out of the mess of continuous depletion of resources that deny the vital concept of sustainability.

One always hopes that there might be a Montana-type example in which one can trust the managing agency itself to both teach and live up to its mission of providing natural resource sustainability. But the Montana example is extraordinary and the public itself is the mixed human resource we typically have to draw from to try to educate ourselves through the available science literature. Unfortunately, the scientists themselves too often isolate themselves and avoid helping the public to understand the implications of their research and observations. In the case of Washington, the primary problem for Puget Sound steelhead (with the Nooksack, Skagit, and Snohomish basins all having many miles of remaining productive habitat) is loss of early run-timed wild steelhead.

An early paper by Hooton and Lirette (1986) described the vulnerability of early return Gold River wild steelhead because they are exposed to angling pressure for a long period of time. The Gold River early return steelhead remained in the lower river for weeks to months at a time before moving upstream to their spawning streams. The lower Gold River coincided with where anglers had most access and congregated. Whether through direct harvest by sport anglers (or commercial or subsistence net fisheries in the case of Puget Sound streams), or due to indirect loss as a result of multiple hookings in what may be an intensive area of C&R angling, steelhead that remain in place for weeks to months at a time are more vulnerable to loss. This loss can be anticipated to be in direct proportion to how early their arrival is and their subsequent length of time spent in an intensive fishery zone. Yet, it is these earliest fish that can be necessary to fill uppermost spawning grounds they eventually target, or lower tributary destinations whose entry may be dependent on certain flows and temperatures that may differ considerably from year to year. To arrive early can maximize the potential for entry and spawning of steelhead over the greatest breadth of time and thus limit the loss from any time limited catastrophic event (such as flood, drought, landslide, volcanic eruption, etc.).

For instance, 1980 steelhead that entered and spawned at Toutle River tributaries prior to May 18th likely had progeny that survived despite the super-heated mudflows that raced down the mainstems from the Mt. St. Helens eruption. But steelhead trying to enter after that time in 1980 would not likely have survived. And those that spawned in the main river prior to May 18th would not have survived either. From such run-timing diversity, wild steelhead recovered remarkably quickly after the St. Helens eruption in the Toutle basin. In the spring of 1985 a return of 1,800 wild steelhead returned to spawn in the South Fork Toutle alone. This was just five years after many thought that the Toutle basin would be barren of salmon and steelhead for a century. By 1988 over 2,200 wild steelhead spawned in the South Fork Toutle. Unfortunately, Washington Department of Game began planting hatchery summer steelhead into the South Fork Toutle in 1985 and the Green River of the Toutle basin in 1984. The rebuilding numbers of wild steelhead that survived the blast of a mountain could not survive the hatchery introductions. Wild steelhead in the South Fork Toutle today now number but 200-500.

Puget Sound wild steelhead recovery in the remaining more productive stream basins can’t occur with continued releases of Chambers Creek origin hatchery steelhead. One reason is because they return in the early winter months of December, January, and February which is the same time as the historically dominant early-returns of wild winter steelhead. Harvest rates of 80-90% have been targeted on early returning steelhead in the mistaken belief that Chambers Creek hatchery steelhead have always returned earlier than wild steelhead. In the case of the Skagit River, reduction of hatchery plants in 2008 to less than half of former numbers (had been 530,000 then down to 220,000) likely helped in subsequent gradual increases of wild steelhead returns in 2011, 2012, and 2013 (the last back up to 1998 levels, but still well below historic). These fish in the better remaining river basins in Puget Sound may well begin recovering quite rapidly if we just begin to address the hatchery problem. The longer we wait the longer the road back will be – and there comes a point where the resilience of a species is lost along with the potential for recovery.

Top
#912172 - 11/04/14 01:27 PM Re: WFC is taking some heat from the Tribes [Re: ]
Backtrollin Offline
Juvenile at Sea

Registered: 10/18/07
Posts: 174
Loc: Duvall, WA
Does Bill McMillan know that we aren't in Montana? and these are not resident rainbow?

I am tired of these guys using out of basin science to back up their side of the discussion. Lets see some in basin science before we start making decisions...oh wait, we passed that point.

Does anybody believe that fixing a few dikes, removing hatchery fish and planting a few trees is gonna fix this whole mess? It took man 200 years to screw up the PS river systems, its never gonna be the same. The habitat is too far altered to turn this thing completely around.

With no hatchery fish, all tribal/commercial fishing in the PS and in the ocean will be targeting whats left of the wild fish. At least with hatchery fish there is some mitigation in the commercial harvest and a percentage of wild fish pass will through to the spawning beds.

As a recreational fisherman I have come to the realization that when the Wild Steelhead is extinct we will be left with nothing and by my math 50% of nothing is still nothing.

Top
#912198 - 11/04/14 04:30 PM Re: WFC is taking some heat from the Tribes [Re: Backtrollin]
Carcassman Offline
River Nutrients

Registered: 11/21/07
Posts: 7411
Loc: Olema,California,Planet Earth
We have a simple choice. If we want fishing today we will have to have hatcheries. If we want wild fish in the future we will have to significantly cut back on hatcheries. Which cuts back on fishing which cuts back on license sales.

Montana has no commercial fishing to deal with. Montana has no mixed stock fisheries to contend with. Montana manages its own fish, doesn't have to share them with other states and countries.

While biologically what is going on there could probably be applied here the politics are so different.

Top
#912201 - 11/04/14 04:47 PM Re: WFC is taking some heat from the Tribes [Re: Carcassman]
Salmo g. Offline
River Nutrients

Registered: 03/08/99
Posts: 13520
"Montana has no commercial fishing to deal with. Montana has no mixed stock fisheries to contend with. Montana manages its own fish, doesn't have to share them with other states and countries.

While biologically what is going on there could probably be applied here the politics are so different."

Not to mention that Montana waters are inherently many times more productive than WA's. Incremental habitat degradation causes more harm to coastal populations because calcium carbonate-based productivity is so low, nearly non-existent, to begin with. Some comparisons with Montana are relevant, others, like this, are not.

Sg

Top
#912205 - 11/04/14 05:35 PM Re: WFC is taking some heat from the Tribes [Re: Salmo g.]
Carcassman Offline
River Nutrients

Registered: 11/21/07
Posts: 7411
Loc: Olema,California,Planet Earth
Yeah, Salmo, but we know how to increase in-stream productivity here. Perhaps there is something to streams with high amounts of nutrients producing good fish populations.

Top
#912279 - 11/05/14 11:56 AM Re: WFC is taking some heat from the Tribes [Re: Carcassman]
FleaFlickr02 Offline
River Nutrients

Registered: 10/28/09
Posts: 3314
Originally Posted By: Carcassman
Yeah, Salmo, but we know how to increase in-stream productivity here. Perhaps there is something to streams with high amounts of nutrients producing good fish populations.


+ many. Want more steelhead? Need more nutrients. Need more nutrients? Need more salmon. Need more salmon? Don't kill so many in open ocean fisheries.

It just seems to this admittedly uneducated observer that it's all about salmon. Could it be that our ecosystems depend on them, even (gasp) more than the market does?

Back to the original topic, one thing I do like about these lawsuits is that they (might) inspire the powers that be to look at ways to better segregate hatchery stocks from wild. I don't think hatchery steelhead are the silver bullet the WFC is making them out to be, but I think our wild salmon (and, subsequently, steelhead) stocks would fare much better if they weren't subject to a management strategy that allows the vast majority of them to be harvested, the justification for which is that we must maximize harvest of the hatchery fish that swim in the same waters.

Top
Page 2 of 3 < 1 2 3 >

Search

Site Links
Home
Our Washington Fishing
Our Alaska Fishing
Reports
Rates
Contact Us
About Us
Recipes
Photos / Videos
Visit us on Facebook
Today's Birthdays
3Gonads, herm
Recent Gallery Pix
hatchery steelhead
Hatchery Releases into the Pacific and Harvest
Who's Online
1 registered (stonefish), 1043 Guests and 2 Spiders online.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Newest Members
John Boob, Lawrence, I'm Still RichG, feyt, Freezeout
11498 Registered Users
Top Posters
Todd 28170
Dan S. 17149
Sol Duc 16138
The Moderator 14486
Salmo g. 13520
eyeFISH 12766
STRIKE ZONE 12107
Dogfish 10979
ParaLeaks 10513
Jerry Garcia 9160
Forum Stats
11498 Members
16 Forums
63773 Topics
645293 Posts

Max Online: 3001 @ 01/28/20 02:48 PM

Join the PP forums.

It's quick, easy, and always free!

Working for the fish and our future fishing opportunities:

The Wild Steelhead Coalition

The Photo & Video Gallery. Nearly 1200 images from our fishing trips! Tips, techniques, live weight calculator & more in the Fishing Resource Center. The time is now to get prime dates for 2018 Olympic Peninsula Winter Steelhead , don't miss out!.

| HOME | ALASKA FISHING | WASHINGTON FISHING | RIVER REPORTS | FORUMS | FISHING RESOURCE CENTER | CHARTER RATES | CONTACT US | WHAT ABOUT BOB? | PHOTO & VIDEO GALLERY | LEARN ABOUT THE FISH | RECIPES | SITE HELP & FAQ |