#934135 - 07/13/15 11:57 PM
Everett Herald Wild Steelhead Gene Bank Op Ed
|
Registered: 03/27/08
Posts: 1045
Loc: Snoqualmie WA/Cordova AK
|
I am a long time angler and advocate of healthy Wild Steelhead populations, but the die hard wild fish advocates' science regarding hatchery vs. wild is in conflict with their own argument in regards to the Skagit rebound. Supposedly, hatchery fish dilute the gene pool. The Skagit River has seen hatchery steelhead planted for many, many decades, just like other watersheds like the Skykomish, Snoqualmie, Green, Puyallup and Nisqually. Regardless of species, you cannot take a population that are effected by a diluted gene pool and rebuild them in 5-8 years. So if the Skagit has made a historic rebound with native populations with the argument that it is because of a lack of hatchery influence, then why are ALL watersheds deeper into Puget Sound not seeing the same results? The answer is that our other watersheds have deeper issues than just hatchery influence, mainly in-river habitat and poor juvenile survival in urbanized estuaries and beaches where they feed. I am not a biologist, but I have been following the issue for a while, it doesn't take a genius to see this as a ploy for Wild Fish Advocates to use every opportunity to bash our hatchery system without being honest with the public. Everett Herald Wild Steelhead Gene Bank Op Ed
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#934163 - 07/14/15 11:52 AM
Re: Everett Herald Wild Steelhead Gene Bank Op Ed
[Re: Moravec]
|
River Nutrients
Registered: 10/22/09
Posts: 3020
Loc: University Place and Whidbey I...
|
As you indicated, just because there may be a statistical correlation does not mean there is a cause and effect relationship. I believe I read that there has been a similar small rebound to Nisqually wild fish and there has been no EWSH plants there - at least for many, many years if at all.
Recent increases in wild stock returns could just as well be solely due to improved conditions yielding lower mortality.
Not sure that the Snohomish system is comparable to the Skagit so as to be able to make valid conclusions.
_________________________
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
|
|
|
|
#934184 - 07/14/15 03:46 PM
Re: Everett Herald Wild Steelhead Gene Bank Op Ed
[Re: Moravec]
|
River Nutrients
Registered: 03/08/99
Posts: 13526
|
John McMillan evaporates his credibility when stating it is believed (by whom, besides him?) that the Skagit wild steelhead have "rebounded" due to the reduction in the number of hatchery steelhead stocked since 2008.
It's hard to know where to begin with this, especially if I don't want to go on for 20 or 30 pages. Let's start with the fact that the Skagit has been stocked with millions upon millions of hatchery steelhead smolts since the 1950s. If hatchery steelhead were as bad for wild fish as claimed by WFC, there would be few or no wild fish left. However, wild steelhead abundance appears to have held its own through the 1960s, but over-fishing from the combination of high recreational harvest in the late 1960s AND treaty tribal harvest beginning in 1974 caused the low abundance of wild steelhead spawners documented in the late 1970s. Conservation measures for both the recreational and tribal fisheries led to an actual, true, rebound of increased wild steelhead abundance in the 1980s, admittedly aided by years of good marine survival. With harvest by both the recreational and treaty fisheries under control, the reduced abundance that began in the early 1990s can only be rationally attributed to a period of lower marine survival.
If one examines the period of record of good data for harvest and escapement (1977 - to the present) it becomes apparent that Skagit steelhead have not really declined, but rather their abundance rises and falls with variations in marine survival. To say that Skagit steelhead have suddenly rebounded is either B.S., or just plain silly. They have not rebounded. The last two or three years have experienced about average run sizes for the recent period of record.
The low point return of 2,500 in 2009 is no more due to negative hatchery influence than is the high point return of 16,000 in 1988 due to "positive" hatchery influence. McMillan's conclusion is only supported by selectively cherry picking data points and by ignoring the rest of the available information. That's irresponsible fish biology and analysis in my book.
I've never claimed that hatchery steelhead are good for wild steelhead abundance. Eliminating hatchery steelhead will probably have a positive effect on wild steelhead. However, the measure of that positive effect, based on what evidence I have examined to date, is likely to be too small for you or I to count. The abundance of wild steelhead in the Skagit is controlled by factors that have so much greater effect than that of the hatchery steelhead component, the hatchery effect attenuates to background noise. Yet it becomes the basis for lawsuits and major shifts in management that carry significant social and economic impacts.
Most everyone here knows I like wild steelhead. And that I like to fly fish for them on the Skagit River in particular. And that I would support actions that will actually produce a positive benefit for wild Skagit steelhead. All this chasing of the hatchery steelhead issue around is just crazy [Bleeeeep!] man. Not to mention that it distracts attention from things that could make a difference.
Sg
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#934196 - 07/14/15 04:58 PM
Re: Everett Herald Wild Steelhead Gene Bank Op Ed
[Re: Moravec]
|
Carcass
Registered: 01/09/14
Posts: 2312
Loc: Sky River(WA) Clearwater(Id)
|
Well said, SG...
Hatchery steelhead do not fit WFC's ideology of steelhead or steelhead fishing. If they(hatchery steel) smashed a skated dry with consistency and were managed for cnr we wouldn't be having this discussion.
Back in the day when marine conditions were favorable it was common to have seasons when the native and hatchery runs fished great. When marine conditions fell off, so did the native and hatchery populations. To what degree the hatchery fish are dragging down the native populations has got to be minimal at best and thats what needs to be figured out, so every river system can be managed on a case by case basis...
_________________________
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#934201 - 07/14/15 06:20 PM
Re: Everett Herald Wild Steelhead Gene Bank Op Ed
[Re: Beezer]
|
Smolt
Registered: 04/16/14
Posts: 77
Loc: Lake Samish
|
Historically it seems the more hatchery smolts released at Marblemount th fewer hatchery adults returned with a corresponding downward trend in the wild steelhead population. Or, if you don't look at the issue with WFC blinders on, you'd understand that the two situations you speak of are entirely unrelated. When you factor for a decline in freshwater habitat quality and quantity, abysmal early marine survival, incomplete or insufficient data, and continued human population growth over the same years, the picture gets painted with lots of pretty colors. Edit: And the increase in hatchery production in response to gradually declining survival rates. Since 2008, I think, they have cut back the number smolts planted and since we have seen the wild population increase.
Others were too nice in their response about this comment. I say your reasoning on this is may be improved if you engage the statistical services of an intoxicated mentally handicapped orangutan. No one in their right mind would draw population dynamic conclusions from 3 years of available (and highly limited) data. I don't even think WFC would stoop to this level, but then again, they seem to make all of their arguments using highly unrelated correlations.
Edited by TastySalmon (07/14/15 06:21 PM)
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#934231 - 07/15/15 10:46 AM
Re: Everett Herald Wild Steelhead Gene Bank Op Ed
[Re: Moravec]
|
River Nutrients
Registered: 10/22/09
Posts: 3020
Loc: University Place and Whidbey I...
|
The Everett Herald seems to have a problem with reaching out to the range of stakeholders on natural resources topics. At least in this instance their one-sided OPINION is identified as just that. But it still carries weight with the general public. One would reasonably expect that the Herald would interview and quote representatives from both sides of an issue and then wade in with their opinion. This most recent product smacks of having an opinion then searching out and quoting only folks supporting their position.
You may recall the Feb 2013 "news" article written shortly after the WDFW Commission passed its new shrimp policy wherein the Herald's writer interviewed one of the impacted non-tribal commercial shrimpers as well as his Farmers Markets customers bemoaning the impact of the new policy. Not one recreational shrimper was interviewed or quoted nor was the Commission. When recreational shrimpers responded strongly to the one-sided article the Herald did not offer up a follow-on piece nor did their staff writer accept any of the offers to have her actually go along on a recreational shrimping outing.
FYI - here is the Herald's Editorial Board:
• Jon Bauer, Opinion Editor: jbauer@heraldnet.com
• Carol MacPherson, Editorial Writer: cmacpherson@heraldnet.com
• Neal Pattison, Executive Editor: npattison@heraldnet.com
• Josh O'Connor, Publisher: joconnor@heraldnet.com
_________________________
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
|
|
|
|
#934234 - 07/15/15 11:38 AM
Re: Everett Herald Wild Steelhead Gene Bank Op Ed
[Re: Moravec]
|
Juvenile at Sea
Registered: 12/22/14
Posts: 121
Loc: On the Sky
|
Breezer - the increase of Skagit wilds was an improvement of spawning grounds as the sediment from the 2003 flood got washed out. Not the reduction of hatchery plants.
_________________________
Wishin I was fishin the Sauk!!! Catch and Release is not a crime!!!!
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#934242 - 07/15/15 12:12 PM
Re: Everett Herald Wild Steelhead Gene Bank Op Ed
[Re: Moravec]
|
River Nutrients
Registered: 11/25/01
Posts: 2844
Loc: Marysville
|
Breezer - To expand a bit on bk's post following the fall of 2003 major flood (highest in the data base) there was an incredible amount of fine material in the Whitechuck, Suiattle, Sauk below the Whitechuck and the Skagit downstream of the Sauk. The river channel was literally buried in feet of sand. Not only did that sedimentation impact the eggs in the spring of 2004 but also those impacts continued through 2008. The eggs from the spawning steelhead in each of those spring emerged from the gravel approximately a month earlier (due to the low oxygen level/intra gravel flows). That early emergence comes at a significant survival cost of the newly emerging fry. It was not until the summer of 2009 that I saw a more normal fry emerging timing. So hardly surprised that there was significant jump in wild steelhead returns in 2013.
Another management change that occurred at about the same time was the setting aside all the Sauk, most of the Cascade and the upper most Skagit as wild salmonids management zone in 2008. That has resulted in a much more stable and abundance resident component to the o. mykiss population. Those resident rainbows not only provide stability to the steelhead population but also produce some steelhead smolts.
In short the situation is much more complex than just hatchery or no hatchery fish.
Curt
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#934260 - 07/15/15 03:46 PM
Re: Everett Herald Wild Steelhead Gene Bank Op Ed
[Re: Moravec]
|
River Nutrients
Registered: 11/25/01
Posts: 2844
Loc: Marysville
|
Salmo g.
I had assumed that John M. had been miss-quoted or at the very least isolated quotes were taken out of context. I will be interested to see what he has to say.
If not then TU's wild steelhead initiative has some serious catch upping to do to reach speed on steelhead management issues in this State and at the very least some serious bridge re-building to.
He was correct the Skagit system had a jump start on this "gene bank" idea. Just neglected to mention that jump start was on the Sauk in 2008 and included much more than just eliminating hatchery plants. I believe that those 2008 changes resulted in the largest "gene bank" in the State.
Curt
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#934384 - 07/16/15 12:45 PM
Re: Everett Herald Wild Steelhead Gene Bank Op Ed
[Re: Moravec]
|
Juvenile at Sea
Registered: 08/12/13
Posts: 108
Loc: Arlington, Washington
|
C&R and no bait, especially on rivers without or below a natural anadromous barrier. The no fishing regulation should be the absolute last resort, in my opinion, but maybe we are at that point.
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#934450 - 07/16/15 04:05 PM
Re: Everett Herald Wild Steelhead Gene Bank Op Ed
[Re: Moravec]
|
Juvenile at Sea
Registered: 01/30/13
Posts: 233
Loc: Skagit
|
"All other trout" would also include cutts and ESA listed Bull Trout.
_________________________
Catch & Release Is Not A Crime
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
11498 Members
16 Forums
63781 Topics
645410 Posts
Max Online: 3001 @ 01/28/20 02:48 PM
|
|
|