#920596 - 01/28/15 09:50 AM
WFC on PS Hatchery Steelhead
|
Juvenile at Sea
Registered: 07/18/08
Posts: 237
|
All, I was forwarded this email from a friend this morning. Thought you might find it interesting. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Dear Scientist, We are asking you along with other scientists in the fields of aquatic ecology, fisheries management, and conservation genetics to add your name to an important scientific sign-on letter. Our hope is that your contribution will help inform the public and make clear the scientific consensus regarding the risks posed by Chambers Creek hatchery programs to the recovery of wild Puget Sound steelhead. Your participation will reflect your understanding of the issue as a professional scientist and will not represent the views or policies of the organization or agency that employs you. Despite scientific evidence to the contrary, much of the public continues to believe that Chambers Creek steelhead programs do no harm to, or are even essential to, the recovery of wild steelhead. This letter articulates the state of the science as it applies to Chambers Creek steelhead hatchery programs. Your participation will advance the public's understanding of this complex issue, creating support for the use of the best available science. Click here to review the letter and relevant peer-reviewed literature, and add your name. Please contact me if you have any questions. Also, please forward our request to your colleagues with experience in relevant scientific disciplines, with an invitation for them to also support this educational effort. Thank you for your contribution to this important issue. Sincerely, Kurt Beardslee Executive Director Wild Fish Conservancy ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ I couldn't get the original hyperlinks to work, click here to view the letter: http://salsa4.salsalabs.com/o/50835/p/dia/action3/common/public/?action_KEY=11974
Edited by JustBecause (01/28/15 10:54 AM)
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#920601 - 01/28/15 10:18 AM
Re: PS Hatchery Steelhead
[Re: JustBecause]
|
My Area code makes me cooler than you
Registered: 01/27/15
Posts: 4549
|
Is the Wild Fish Conservancy solar powered or do they purchase hydroelectric power?
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#920657 - 01/28/15 04:18 PM
Re: PS Hatchery Steelhead
[Re: JustBecause]
|
Repeat Spawner
Registered: 04/20/09
Posts: 1270
Loc: WaRshington
|
They run on bio-fuel....
....their own bullsh!t.
_________________________
When I grow up I want to be, One of the harvesters of the sea. I think before my days are done, I want to be a fisherman.
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#920671 - 01/28/15 04:55 PM
Re: PS Hatchery Steelhead
[Re: JustBecause]
|
Spawner
Registered: 02/06/08
Posts: 506
|
Mostly WFC I would guess.
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#920674 - 01/28/15 05:06 PM
Re: PS Hatchery Steelhead
[Re: JustBecause]
|
Juvenile at Sea
Registered: 12/22/14
Posts: 121
Loc: On the Sky
|
Ya, so far most signatures are w f c employees
_________________________
Wishin I was fishin the Sauk!!! Catch and Release is not a crime!!!!
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#920741 - 01/28/15 11:31 PM
Re: PS Hatchery Steelhead
[Re: bk paige]
|
River Nutrients
Registered: 10/22/09
Posts: 3020
Loc: University Place and Whidbey I...
|
Ya, so far most signatures are w f c employees Voluntarily???
_________________________
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
|
|
|
|
#920745 - 01/29/15 04:35 AM
Re: PS Hatchery Steelhead
[Re: JustBecause]
|
Spawner
Registered: 03/21/06
Posts: 723
|
The whole idea of recovering Wild fish in this state is a farce, you have systems like the Queets, with little human impact on it's watershed, barely struggle to make annual escapement, if it does at all. Then you have a river to the south of us , in Oregon, called the Umpqua, that this year will get a return of close to 50k wild fish returning, farmed along and logged all around, our foot print is all over it's waterahed. The difference between the two is NETTING, and as long as it continues to happen at the rate it does, Wild fish will continue to struggle. Both have the same ocean concerns, both have sportsmen intervention, Umpqua probably more. Only thing different is no netting in Oregon. And they even have Hatchery intervention.........
Edited by Met'lheadMatt (01/29/15 04:38 AM)
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#920751 - 01/29/15 07:36 AM
Re: PS Hatchery Steelhead
[Re: JustBecause]
|
River Nutrients
Registered: 11/21/07
Posts: 7431
Loc: Olema,California,Planet Earth
|
One other very b ig difference between the Umpqua and Queets is productivity. The Umpqua, according to the bios I have talked to, has a base rock that puts nutrients into the stream, making it productive if fish life. Like limestone streams, many of the Great lakes tibs, and so on. The Queets has a sterile base rock, so it needs nutrients from other sources (salmon). Since that is not possible in WA, the Queets productivity stays low and produces few steelhead. It is producing at capacity, for its productivity, but we are limiting that capacity.
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#920753 - 01/29/15 07:53 AM
Re: PS Hatchery Steelhead
[Re: JustBecause]
|
Repeat Spawner
Registered: 08/24/10
Posts: 1383
|
easy fix. Everyone sign my Limestone quarry petition for the queets
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#920764 - 01/29/15 08:29 AM
Re: PS Hatchery Steelhead
[Re: JustBecause]
|
River Nutrients
Registered: 10/28/09
Posts: 3314
|
Though I believe the impact of gillnetting is sometimes exaggerated, I don't feel that way about the case of the Queets. There are weeks (generally coinciding with the peak salmon and steelhead runs) where that system gets drift netted 6 and 7 days. Regardless of what you believe about whether or not that's fair, it's certainly not conducive to the large escapements required, to Carcassman's point, to make the otherwise sterile environment productive.
As with all local streams, however, despite what seems like excessive gillnetting to me, I suspect the far greater impact occurs in ocean fisheries to the north. I've probably said it before, but I think the real danger of hatchery fish is that wherever they are present, the aim is to kill every one of them above what is needed to produce the next generation. We attempt to accomplish that goal through fisheries. Especially in the case of commercial fisheries (to a lesser but very meaningful extent in sport fisheries), wild fish get killed in said fisheries; LOTS of them.
Whatever the impact of the genetic introgression WSC points to, I have to believe it's a drop in the bucket compared to the chronic overharvest of wild fish in fisheries targeting hatchery fish. Perhaps WSC recognizes this, but they choose to push the genetic agenda because they aren't optimistic that overharvest arguments will be effective in their cause... or perhaps that's naive.
I know nothing of Kurt Beardslee, but at least some of the WSC folks are people whom I believe are genuinely dedicated to the recovery of wild steelhead, and I don't want to believe they are only doing this to make a living off lawsuit settlements and nostalgic documentaries (though I hope they keep those coming; I am a sucker for fish films).
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#920767 - 01/29/15 08:46 AM
Re: PS Hatchery Steelhead
[Re: FleaFlickr02]
|
Juvenile at Sea
Registered: 07/18/08
Posts: 237
|
Just to clarify, we are talking here about the letter from WFC- Wild Fish Conservancy, not WSC- Wild Salmon Center.
Two different organizations
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#920807 - 01/29/15 11:31 AM
Re: PS Hatchery Steelhead
[Re: JustBecause]
|
Dick Nipples
Registered: 03/08/99
Posts: 28170
Loc: Seattle, Washington USA
|
The letter is about Puget Sound streams, and those streams have even less in common with the Umpqua as the Queets does...and the Queets has almost nothing in common with the Umpqua, either.
If anyone, on either side of the debate, starts citing information about the Umpqua you should tune out and suggest that everyone break for lunch.
It is worse than irrelevant...it is purposely misleading.
Fish on...
Todd
_________________________
Team Flying Super Ditch Pickle
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#920814 - 01/29/15 11:52 AM
Re: PS Hatchery Steelhead
[Re: JustBecause]
|
Dick Nipples
Registered: 03/08/99
Posts: 28170
Loc: Seattle, Washington USA
|
No, I am referring to anyone who ever refers to the Umpqua River, for any reason whatsoever, when comparing Puget Sound streams, or coastal Washington streams...unless the reason they are referring to the Umpqua is to point out that it is stupid to compare it to Puget Sound or Washington coastal streams.
This goes for the WFC crowd who compare it to the Skagit and say the Skagit should have fish just like it, and it goes to the anti-WFC crowd who compare it to any other stream and say that if the hatchery program there doesn't bother the steelhead then neither does any other anywhere else, or that the Queets would be just like the Umpqua if we didn't have gillnetting.
Fish on...
Todd
_________________________
Team Flying Super Ditch Pickle
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#920844 - 01/29/15 02:49 PM
Re: PS Hatchery Steelhead
[Re: JustBecause]
|
My Area code makes me cooler than you
Registered: 01/27/15
Posts: 4549
|
Man is screwing up the resource and will continue to do so. Us being put on this small rock is a cruel experiment. It is just a matter of time.
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#920864 - 01/29/15 04:35 PM
Re: PS Hatchery Steelhead
[Re: JustBecause]
|
River Nutrients
Registered: 11/25/01
Posts: 2844
Loc: Marysville
|
In the letter the authors (WFC?) are claiming that the Chambers Creek hatchery steelhead are a avoidable threat to Puget Sound wild winter steelhead. While I probably have it all wrong but isn't the implication from concern with that ending the planting of Chambers Creek hatchery steelhead the status of the wild winters in Puget Sound would improve?
NMFS Technical Recovery Team (TRT) in examining the wild steelhead populations of Puget Sound determined there were 32 what they called demographical independent populations (DIPs). Of those 32 DIPs 27 are winter populations. With the ending of the Chambers Creek program on the Skagit only 6 are currently being planted with Chambers Creek steelhead.
Of the 21 DIPs that are not being planted with Chambers Creek 9 have not been planted for at least 3 steelhead generations and another 10 have been planted for at least 1 steelhead generation. To my knowledge none of those populations have shown any measureable increase in wild steelhead numbers since the ending of the release of the hatchery fish.
Of further interest 1/2 of those DIPs do not have winter recreational seasons. Across the Puget Sound region many of the DIPs of neither recreational or tribal gill net fisheries during the winter. For those streams that are open to fishing (targeting hatchery steelhead or other species) during the winter 'the aggregate combined effect (total impacts associated with fishing) of all fisheries (yes that includes tribal take) in recent years has average about 4% .
For at least Puget Sound wild winter steelhead significant reductions of hatchery /wild interactions and fishing impacts have not resulted in any measureable improvements in the status of the wild steelhead. Could it be that if folks are really concern about recovery of PS wild steelhead that it is time to at factors other than hatchery and/or harvest?
Curt
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#920865 - 01/29/15 04:39 PM
Re: PS Hatchery Steelhead
[Re: JustBecause]
|
Dick Nipples
Registered: 03/08/99
Posts: 28170
Loc: Seattle, Washington USA
|
Unfortunately you can cut hatchery production and harvest pressures with the stroke of a pen.
The actual work to repair steelhead streams and steelhead runs will be very expensive, hard, and take a long time...and it seems that there is no political will to do any of it.
Fish on...
Todd
_________________________
Team Flying Super Ditch Pickle
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
1 registered (steely slammer),
1408
Guests and
2
Spiders online. |
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
11498 Members
16 Forums
63779 Topics
645378 Posts
Max Online: 3001 @ 01/28/20 02:48 PM
|
|
|