Our fisheries need your help...

This is the Warheit genetic study that shows genetically what the impact of 60+ years Chambers Creek releases.
http://wdfw.wa.gov/conservation/fisherie...kshop071315.pdf

Basicly, this chambers program may be the most scientifically sound program the WDFW has ever produced.
• Low potential for W vs. H interactions
• 2-4 week downstream migration has little to no impact on resident wild steelhead
• Less than 6% integration of H v W in all programs studied (even lower in popular fisheries)
• Proof that Chambers creek fish are not damaging the Wild Populations both genetically, as a competitor for fry or as a predator.

This link is the link to NOAA’s comment page
http://www.westcoast.fisheries.noaa.gov/newsroom/2015/psewspr7-14final.pdf
At this time, NOAA Fisheries is seeking input on the scope of the analysis, including the range
of reasonable alternatives, recommendations for methods of analysis and information on the
impacts of the alternatives. Those attending the workshops may submit comments on the
proposed scope of the draft EIS by leaving them at the workshops, submitting them by email to
EWShatcheriesEIS.wcr@noaa.gov; faxing them to 360-753-9517; or mailing or hand-delivering
them to NMFS Sustainable Fisheries Division, 510 Desmond Dr. S.E., Suite 103, Lacey, WA,
98503.
For further information on the project, the Hatchery and Genetic Management Plans for the steelhead hatchery programs under review, and to see documents
produced so far, go to: http://www.westcoast.fisheries.noaa.gov/hatcheries/salmon_and_steelhead_hatcheries.html


My thoughts:

1. We must send letters to NOAA. They were very poignant in stating that our letters count. They don’t want to see form letters, they want personal thoughts, opinions & suggestions.
2. For the first time in my life I witnessed NOAA, WDFW, TRIBES and SPORTFISHERMEN all on the same page, fighting for the same cause. While I often disagree with tribal influence, with this topic all sides working together can be more powerful than an extremist environmental group, At the very least it gives me hope that someday all stakeholders can work together on fish issues.
3. We need to push NOAA to complete the review as fast as we can. If the EIS gets held up in litigation and does not get approved next spring we will lose near all brood stock and the Chambers creek run is over.
4. Maybe the most important aspect: If WFC gets its way with these hatchery fish it sets a dangerous president for Salmon Hatcheries. A win here and their targets will be set on the beloved Hatchery Chinook. If we, as sport fishermen, want fish into the future we need to act now!

Finally, the WFC is using a broken formula for fish management. Most of the science they quote is not basin specific and has nothing to do with what is going on in Puget Sound. Science from the Hood River in Oregon has no place in the discussion about our local streams. According to the IRS the WFC has a one million dollar payroll each year. That is a huge amount of money for a small 501c3 to support. This means they have to generate $$$ however they can. When Beardslee started Washington trout 20 years ago it was him an a couple guys getting habitat restoration work and covering their salaries. Today this ginormous payroll has to be fed and they are proving that they will feed it any way possible.

Just last year they were managing a project on the Snoqualmie where they were cutting corners to save money. Meanwhile illegal dumping destroyed habitat in other parts of the watershed. In this case they got caught….passed the blame to the subcontractor and moved on. http://www.king5.com/story/tech/science/environment/2014/08/04/13297348/ WFC was in charge of the project and failed to oversee the subcontractor. How many times has WFC cut corners on taxpayer funded projects to line their pockets?

Fish management of fish by a singular group is wrong. Fish management of fish through litigation is wrong. Fish management for the almighty dollar is wrong. Its time this comes to a head. We need to save our Chambers program and set the stage for all stakeholders to work together.

Mtassisdragon, its a bigger picture my friend.

If the end of the Chambers Creek fish happens these are a few things you can expect:
-No fishing in Puget Sound Streams for Winter Steelhead
-Increase pressure on the OP leading to more shutdowns on wild fish there
-Potential for new litigation and the end of Chambers Fish on the Coast (bogey)
-Potential for the end of Puget Sound Hatchery salmon to be next on the chopping block
-Loss in license revenue for WDFW
-Loss in revenue for sport fishing businesses

I think you will find many people on this board and elsewhere support Chambers Fish....guides, tackle manufactures, fishermen, politicians, NOAA, WDFW, tribes, Hotels, Gas Stations, Resturants, boat builders, boat dealers, boat mechanics, rod builders, the list goes on.

You call them "turds"....I call catching steelhead 5 minutes from home fun!

Thanks for having a great attitude!

Myassisdragon,
Cool, email in your thoughts to NOAA. Lets get some momentum!

If the name fits... why not?

I've often wondered how a person over the age of 30 can be so utterly sure of their conclusions.

I think that the real problem with Chambers fish is not their genetics but their actual presence. Genetically, it has been shown over and over again that they are reproductively incompetent. Some problems, but nothing that allowing more wild spawners wouldn't overwhelm.

The problem is the fisheries for them. Mostly the past fisheries, but continuing now with non-selective methods.

I believe that a species' life history patterns are expressions of what it needs to survive. Elwha Chinook were huge because they needed to be to successfully spawn, and so on.

Winter steelhead NEED to return November-May (or even a wider span in some systems), they NEED repeat spawners, an so on. Cramming the run into March-May-as was the practice for ages- is a recipe for disaster.

We might be able to have a hatchery-based program with selective harvest but never with non-selective.

Just one idiot opinion.

A funny thing about the internet is that people's opinions can come across as absolute and 100% assured when they are definitely not.

I find that people in real life come across as much more humble.

I usally take that into account when reading opinions about important topics because people deserve the right to have an opinion and it can be difficult translate that opinion across the Internet without knowing their personality.

I like this post because the OP has obviously thought long and hard about this, done some research, and is presenting it well.

I also don't agree with the OP on every aspect of their opinion, but do not feel the need to belittle them like so many old curmudgeons around here who belittle based on principle without even adding anything to the conversation.

Now to add something to the conversation:

Don't forget about competition between juveniles in the stream and nearshore areas. If you dump a crap load of hatchery fish into a system they use a lot of resources that would otherwise sustain wild fish.

Genetic introgression is merely one of the potential impacts and I believe it gets a lot of attention because it is measurable. Competition between juvenile wild and hatchery fish within a river system would be much harder to explore scientifically.

Besides genetic integration, another factor are wild/hatchery pairings that result in spawning but no actual offspring. I'm not sure which is "worse"? In this case, the wild fish essentially wastes their reproductive cycle. In a paper world of ideals, the hatchery/wild timing would prevent both the integration and "dead offspring" scenarios but, at least locally, I can tell you with certainty that there is both substantial temporal overlap and hatchery/wild spawning pairs in the river.

I would add that anyone looking to learn information on the topic would be well served to look beyond fishing forums.