Check

 

Defiance Boats!

LURECHARGE!

THE PP OUTDOOR FORUMS

Kast Gear!

Power Pro Shimano Reels G Loomis Rods

  Willie boats! Puffballs!

 

Three Rivers Marine

 

 
Page 1 of 5 1 2 3 4 5 >
Topic Options
Rate This Topic
#953847 - 03/16/16 03:52 PM wild steelhead gene banks
Brewer Offline
2112

Registered: 01/11/07
Posts: 4996
Loc: in the mass production zone
just came across the email from WDFG. the projected crawl I foretold would continue, well is continuing.

https://web.mail.comcast.net/zimbra/h/se...amp;action=view

just a complete total joke!
_________________________

Top
#953918 - 03/17/16 06:50 AM Re: wild steelhead gene banks [Re: Brewer]
_WW_ Offline
Juvenile at Sea

Registered: 01/30/13
Posts: 233
Loc: Skagit
Do you have a different link?
_________________________
Catch & Release Is Not A Crime

Top
#953934 - 03/17/16 09:45 AM Re: wild steelhead gene banks [Re: Brewer]
eyeFISH Offline
Ornamental Rice Bowl

Registered: 11/24/03
Posts: 12766
Gray and Chinook Rivers are the latest additions to the inventory of wild steelhead gene banks.
_________________________
"Let every angler who loves to fish think what it would mean to him to find the fish were gone." (Zane Grey)

"If you don't kill them, they will spawn." (Carcassman)


The Keen Eye MD
Long Live the Kings!

Top
#953957 - 03/17/16 10:43 AM Re: wild steelhead gene banks [Re: Brewer]
bushbear Offline
River Nutrients

Registered: 08/26/02
Posts: 4709
Loc: Sequim
Here's the press release


WDFW NEWS RELEASE
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife
600 Capitol Way North, Olympia, WA 98501-1091
http://wdfw.wa.gov/

March 16, 2016
Contact: WDFW Reg. 5 Office, (360) 696-6211

WDFW sites last steelhead gene bank
planned for the lower Columbia River

OLYMPIA – The Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) will no longer release hatchery-reared steelhead in the Grays River to help preserve the wild steelhead population near the mouth of the Columbia River.

The Chinook River, which flows into the Columbia 15 miles farther downstream, will also be off-limits to the release of hatchery steelhead now that WDFW has designated the Grays/Chinook wild steelhead population the state’s newest wild fish gene bank.

That designation, announced today, is part of a statewide policy to protect self-sustaining populations of wild steelhead by reducing the risk to them posed by hatchery fish, said Cindy Le Fleur, WDFW regional fish manager.

“This is the last of four gene banks currently planned for wild steelhead in the lower Columbia River Basin,” Le Fleur said. “The department remains committed to producing hatchery fish for harvest, but we also need to protect wild steelhead against interbreeding, disease, and competition from hatchery fish.”

Since 2014, the department has also established wild steelhead gene banks on the East Fork Lewis River, the North Fork Toutle/Green River, and the Wind River.

WDFW first identified wild steelhead gene banks as a recovery strategy in the Statewide Steelhead Management Plan, adopted by the Washington Fish and Wildlife Commission in 2008.

Le Fleur said WDFW’s final decision to site a gene bank near the mouth of the Columbia River came down to a choice between the Grays/Chinook rivers, or an area including Mill, Abernathy and Germany creeks.

In 2015, a 16-member citizen work group advised against siting a gene bank on the Elochoman and Skamokawa rivers, but did not reach a consensus on a final option. However, about 85 percent of the comments later received from the public supported the Grays/Chinook option, Le Fleur said.

“Those rivers have a number of advantages over the three streams, including a higher abundance of wild steelhead and more spawning habitat,” she said.

In recent years, WDFW has raised an average of 140,000 winter steelhead smolts at the Grays River Hatchery from broodstock collected at Beaver Creek on the Elochoman River. About 40,000 of those smolts were released into the Grays River, while the rest were transported to the Elochoman and Coweeman rivers for release.

This year, however, the number of steelhead smolts raised at the Grays River Hatchery was severely reduced by the effects of last summer’s drought. Le Fleur said 130,000 juvenile steelhead died last July as a result of high water temperatures, low water levels and Ichthyophthirus, the deadly fish disease known as “ich.”

In mid-March, the 10,000 smolts that survived will be transported to the Elochoman River, where they will be acclimated then released in mid-April, Le Fleur said.

“Survival rates at some other hatcheries in the region were actually higher than expected, which help to offset the losses at Grays River,” she said. “Even so, total production for the area is about 80 percent of the goal, and we plan to reduce our releases by an average of 20 percent at six sites this spring.”

Those sites include the Washougal, Elochoman, Coweeman and Kalama rivers, as well as Salmon Creek and Rock Creek.

Despite the gene bank designation, hatchery managers plan to continue producing 140,000 winter steelhead smolts per year at the Grays River Hatchery or at the Beaver Creek facility. WDFW will also continue to produce coho and chum salmon at Grays River.

Top
#953967 - 03/17/16 11:58 AM Re: wild steelhead gene banks [Re: Brewer]
Chum Man Offline
River Nutrients

Registered: 11/07/99
Posts: 2691
Loc: Yelmish
yet again, WDFW chooses the cost cutting measure. could have used abernathy, mill and germany creeks but instead chose a river with a hatchery program and public access. just like the green over the coweeman.

just wait till we get to the grays harbor rivers for a gene bank site. they'll probably pick the wynoochee, skookumchuck and satsop.

this state makes me sick.


Edited by Chum Man (03/17/16 11:58 AM)

Top
#953971 - 03/17/16 12:24 PM Re: wild steelhead gene banks [Re: Brewer]
WDFW X 1 = 0 Offline
My Area code makes me cooler than you

Registered: 01/27/15
Posts: 4549
Working themselves out of a job as far as I'm concerned.

Throw the lazy bums out!!!

Top
#953982 - 03/17/16 01:30 PM Re: wild steelhead gene banks [Re: Brewer]
WDFW X 1 = 0 Offline
My Area code makes me cooler than you

Registered: 01/27/15
Posts: 4549
There will be riots!!

Top
#953991 - 03/17/16 02:07 PM Re: wild steelhead gene banks [Re: Chum Man]
jgreen Offline
Returning Adult

Registered: 04/18/12
Posts: 315
Loc: Elma, WA
Originally Posted By: Chum Man


just wait till we get to the grays harbor rivers for a gene bank site. they'll probably pick the wynoochee, skookumchuck and satsop.

this state makes me sick.


Locals will not stand for that I can assure you.

Top
#953995 - 03/17/16 02:48 PM Re: wild steelhead gene banks [Re: jgreen]
Carcassman Online   content
River Nutrients

Registered: 11/21/07
Posts: 7410
Loc: Olema,California,Planet Earth
So? Don't think the locals liked the Green/Coweeman either.

Are you presuming WDFW listens to input?

Top
#953997 - 03/17/16 03:05 PM Re: wild steelhead gene banks [Re: Brewer]
jgreen Offline
Returning Adult

Registered: 04/18/12
Posts: 315
Loc: Elma, WA
I'm suggesting they'd just say FU I'm fishing. The Wynoochee and Skookumchuck would be impractical, damed rivers need hatcheries. The Satsop is the only real option for this.

Ive always thought they needed an early December hatchery run. Spread the pressure over the Nooch and Satsop. I live near both, I fish both. Id love to see both full of early run hatchery brats. Oh, and plug the Satsop full of summer runs, so I can fly fish above the Schafer bridge and not just occasionally run into trout fishing.

Im sure people are pissed about the other rivers, Grays Harbor folks just tend to REALLY not care what the WDFW think. Been scorned to many times.


Edited by jgreen (03/17/16 03:07 PM)

Top
#953999 - 03/17/16 03:44 PM Re: wild steelhead gene banks [Re: jgreen]
JustBecause Offline
Juvenile at Sea

Registered: 07/18/08
Posts: 237
Originally Posted By: jgreen
Ive always thought they needed an early December hatchery run. Spread the pressure over the Nooch and Satsop. I live near both, I fish both. Id love to see both full of early run hatchery brats. Oh, and plug the Satsop full of summer runs, so I can fly fish above the Schafer bridge and not just occasionally run into trout fishing.


The Satsop and Skook programs (as well as Newaukum and upper Chehalis releases) intentionally went away from the early winter stock years ago. The only place that has it now is Humptilips and that is not likely to change. All of the winter fish (besides Hump) use local and some natural-origin broodstock, so the return timing is more like the naturals - late winter early spring.

Summers in the upper Chehalis were tried for about 5 years of releases back in the mid 2000's with limited to no success. Summers in the Nooch do good and there's a release in the Hump too.

Not sure what the candidates for WSGB would be but I agree that the Nooch and Skookumchuck are not likely... Wishkah, Hoquim, Black, Scatter, Lincoln Creek, SF Chehalis? All places with no current hatchery plants. Not sure of the size of the steelhead pops in them...

Top
#954008 - 03/17/16 05:11 PM Re: wild steelhead gene banks [Re: Brewer]
jgreen Offline
Returning Adult

Registered: 04/18/12
Posts: 315
Loc: Elma, WA
Cloqullum would be a good creek. When I was a kid, I'd float eggs in there in January and catch a few. Didn't know any better when I was 10. It would be a good river for a brood stocking program.

Have they actually tried hatchery Summers on the Satsop? I would think it would do well. More bank access (It feels like to me) on the Satsop. Would be nice to have a few to play with. I caught one pulling a bugger under a log two years ago up above Schafer, kicked my a$$ for about 20 minutes, I felt bad when I got it close to the bank and saw it was a steelhead. A nice little 6lb torpedo. Thought it was just a big 2lb cutt. Fun fight on a 4lb tippet. Had to sit with the thing for 45 minutes to revive it.

Top
#954061 - 03/18/16 10:47 AM Re: wild steelhead gene banks [Re: Brewer]
Salmo g. Offline
River Nutrients

Registered: 03/08/99
Posts: 13520
At first it seemed odd to propose the Gray's as a wild gene bank river because of the hatchery on the West Fork. However, I heard that the hatchery is going to close because the site and the water supply are threatened by the river channel movement, or something like that. So it's just a matter of time. And since the Gray's does have the most suitable steelhead habitat and the healthiest run of wild steelhead at the present time, it's the best candidate for gene bank designation, unpopular as the idea might be.

If gene bank designation comes to Gray's Harbor, the best candidates probably are the upper Chehalis and Newaukum. There's a fair amount of suitable habitat that's likely to remain in forestry and decent wild runs, but today's standards, that is.

Top
#954062 - 03/18/16 11:22 AM Re: wild steelhead gene banks [Re: Brewer]
Carcassman Online   content
River Nutrients

Registered: 11/21/07
Posts: 7410
Loc: Olema,California,Planet Earth
It would surprise me that the Grays has much of anything wild in it. When I worked in the watershed it was hellishly unstable. The bridge at the hatchery used to something like 10' or more above the river. Last time I was there the bottom was up to the bridge in places and well filled for the rest. If, in unstable stream like that, the steelhead are doing well (or what passes for well in WA) then those are damn tough fish.

Top
#954066 - 03/18/16 01:10 PM Re: wild steelhead gene banks [Re: Carcassman]
JustBecause Offline
Juvenile at Sea

Registered: 07/18/08
Posts: 237

Top
#954090 - 03/18/16 03:49 PM Re: wild steelhead gene banks [Re: Brewer]
Carcassman Online   content
River Nutrients

Registered: 11/21/07
Posts: 7410
Loc: Olema,California,Planet Earth
What would really be informative would be to have a age analysis rather than just looking at escapement. If one assumes 2 fresh 2 salt then looking at the recent data shows most "cycles" declining. In a fish with as complex life history as steelhead (FW can be at least 1-4 and saltwater can be 1-3 or 4) for first-time spawners (before you even get into repeats) it is way too simplistic to just look at un-aged data.

Top
#954120 - 03/18/16 10:47 PM Re: wild steelhead gene banks [Re: Carcassman]
JustBecause Offline
Juvenile at Sea

Registered: 07/18/08
Posts: 237
Well, sure it's too simplistic Carc...

However, I was only demonstrating that fish are present, not making inferences from it.

That's for you to do!

Top
#954126 - 03/19/16 07:16 AM Re: wild steelhead gene banks [Re: Brewer]
Carcassman Online   content
River Nutrients

Registered: 11/21/07
Posts: 7410
Loc: Olema,California,Planet Earth
I agree. I don't imagine there were even that many.

This whole teasing out by brood line started for me in the 70s, looking at steelhead punchcard data. All the graphs, plotted annually for the streams with primarily wild fish in the catch, showed a lot of variation. If, though, you broke it up into 4 separate lines (assuming as we did, then, that 2.2 fish were the vast majority of a wild run) in almost every stream for all 4 lines the lines all went down. Wild steelies were in trouble 40 years ago, before it was cool, or job enhancing, to notice.

Top
#954177 - 03/19/16 06:50 PM Re: wild steelhead gene banks [Re: Brewer]
Brewer Offline
2112

Registered: 01/11/07
Posts: 4996
Loc: in the mass production zone
Won't belong when there will be no hatch steelhead to be kept. The truth is wild steelhead just don't respond when hatchery fish are cut.

The Yakima river should be used ased a excellent example. Never had a state hatchery on the Yakima. It should be loaded with wild steelhead.... Guess what? It's no better now that 40 years ago.
_________________________

Top
#954233 - 03/20/16 11:24 AM Re: wild steelhead gene banks [Re: Brewer]
Salmo g. Offline
River Nutrients

Registered: 03/08/99
Posts: 13520
Brewer,

I think if you looked at the data you would see that Yakima basin steelhead are doing quite a bit better now than they were 40 years ago. Improved downstream passage at the mainstem Columbia River dams and more restrictive trout management in freshwater have contributed to an uptick in adult steelhead returns.

Sg

Top
#954283 - 03/20/16 11:53 PM Re: wild steelhead gene banks [Re: Brewer]
Brewer Offline
2112

Registered: 01/11/07
Posts: 4996
Loc: in the mass production zone
My point has always been that the Yakima is a huge watershed minus any steelhead hatchery. After 40 years of any minus sports season. The entire watershed should be chucked full of steelhead. More than "a bit better". As stated above. 40 freaking years and all there is " a bit better"... Makes me just laugh. Not really though.
_________________________

Top
#954310 - 03/21/16 09:27 AM Re: wild steelhead gene banks [Re: Brewer]
Salmo g. Offline
River Nutrients

Registered: 03/08/99
Posts: 13520
Brewer,

I don't know how you evaluate what a river should produce, but I think any reasonable estimation process has to consider all the major factors that affect productivity, capacity, and diversity. In order for the Yakima to be chuck full of steelhead two major factors that limit productivity and capacity would have to be removed. First, eliminate use of the Yakima basin as an irrigation water source and restore the water supply and hydrologic cycle to fish production instead of fruit and vegetables. Second, eliminate upstream and downstream passage mortality associated with the four lower Columbia River mainstem dams. Do those things and you would be surprised at the steelhead population response in the Yak.

Sg

Top
#954321 - 03/21/16 10:49 AM Re: wild steelhead gene banks [Re: Brewer]
Carcassman Online   content
River Nutrients

Registered: 11/21/07
Posts: 7410
Loc: Olema,California,Planet Earth
And third, significantly increase the number of spawning salmon to way above what manager's currently want.

Top
#954345 - 03/21/16 01:10 PM Re: wild steelhead gene banks [Re: Brewer]
Carcassman Online   content
River Nutrients

Registered: 11/21/07
Posts: 7410
Loc: Olema,California,Planet Earth
Continuing to be too many people making demands on the watershed.

Top
#954351 - 03/21/16 01:58 PM Re: wild steelhead gene banks [Re: Brewer]
Paul Smenis Offline
Repeat Spawner

Registered: 08/02/12
Posts: 1052
Loc: In a drift boat...
Originally Posted By: Brewer
My point has always been that the Yakima is a huge watershed minus any steelhead hatchery. After 40 years of any minus sports season. The entire watershed should be chucked full of steelhead. More than "a bit better". As stated above. 40 freaking years and all there is " a bit better"... Makes me just laugh. Not really though.




Better not click on this link, it might make you as sick as I am...

http://emeraldwateranglers.com/2013/10/15/yakima-steelhead-ponder-this/
_________________________
YOUR MOTHER IS A TULE!


Top
#954353 - 03/21/16 02:29 PM Re: wild steelhead gene banks [Re: Brewer]
Brewer Offline
2112

Registered: 01/11/07
Posts: 4996
Loc: in the mass production zone
awesome link.

still seems a mystery as to why the upper Yakima basin is not being used better by steelhead.


from the link,

"Yakima and many of its tributaries such as Big Creek, Cabin Creek, Teanaway River, and many others should have at least another 6,000-10,000 … even under present conditions. Given the good passage conditions in the Columbia in recent years and the good overall ocean conditions, the Yakima should be having wild steelhead returns of 15,000-20,000."


SG, you catch that? "even under present conditions" beer
_________________________

Top
#954363 - 03/21/16 04:23 PM Re: wild steelhead gene banks [Re: Brewer]
What Offline
Spawner

Registered: 11/05/05
Posts: 870
So what exactly is the point you are trying to make Brewer?

That if there were mass hatchery steelhead plants afforded to the Yakima basin that those fish would somehow return in greater numbers than the already adapted stocks of wild steelhead? Or, just plant mass numbers of hatchery fish for angler opportunity?
_________________________
TEAM Rainbow/Waterfall/Unicorn/Tecate/Zig Zag PRO STAFF





Top
#954365 - 03/21/16 04:43 PM Re: wild steelhead gene banks [Re: Brewer]
OncyT Offline
Spawner

Registered: 02/06/08
Posts: 506
The link does not say who made this estimate or the methodology used, so it is difficult to respond to these estimates. Further in the note the author suggests potential production of a bunch of different species based on the historical amount of spawning gravel available and says that "I do not have a present estimate we will eventually have for historic Yakima steelhead based on spawning gravel, but I can guarantee it will be well above 100,000."

Really only one thing to say....no one I know in the field thinks that the amount of available spawning gravel controls steelhead production.

Top
#954367 - 03/21/16 05:01 PM Re: wild steelhead gene banks [Re: What]
Brewer Offline
2112

Registered: 01/11/07
Posts: 4996
Loc: in the mass production zone
Originally Posted By: What
So what exactly is the point you are trying to make Brewer?

That if there were mass hatchery steelhead plants afforded to the Yakima basin that those fish would somehow return in greater numbers than the already adapted stocks of wild steelhead? Or, just plant mass numbers of hatchery fish for angler opportunity?





The point is very clear. These "wild gene bank rivers" are a joke.

EFLewis is basically a sterile river. Guys fish it knowing it has no hatch fish in anymore. The effort to even hook a wild fish is not happening.
_________________________

Top
#954372 - 03/21/16 05:44 PM Re: wild steelhead gene banks [Re: Brewer]
Salmo g. Offline
River Nutrients

Registered: 03/08/99
Posts: 13520
Brewer,

Yes, I read the linked article. As OncyT points out, the estimates presented are questionable at best. Spawning gravel is not the limiting factor for any of the species considered, except possibly sockeye when the gravel area is small and the lake area is large. And there is ample gravel in the historical sockeye spawning tributaries relative to the size of the lakes the juveniles reared.

There is a lot more in those estimates that bear a critical analysis, but it's not worth going into without more habitat information, and not the kind used by the authors of the linked article.

The upshot is that the Yakima is doing pretty well in consideration of the severe limitations imposed by the many storage reservoirs, irrigation diversion dams, and the regulation of river flow to meet irrigation demands, irrespective of fisheries needs. And yes, I'm aware of the changes made around 20 years ago for "flip-flop" to protect spring Chinook redds in the Yakima.

Sg

Top
#954394 - 03/21/16 11:08 PM Re: wild steelhead gene banks [Re: Brewer]
What Offline
Spawner

Registered: 11/05/05
Posts: 870
Your exact point was not clearly stated therefore not understood.

I disagree with your EFL assessment and your choice in referencing the Yakima as being comparable to WGB designated systems on the west side.
_________________________
TEAM Rainbow/Waterfall/Unicorn/Tecate/Zig Zag PRO STAFF





Top
#954395 - 03/22/16 12:24 AM Re: wild steelhead gene banks [Re: What]
Brewer Offline
2112

Registered: 01/11/07
Posts: 4996
Loc: in the mass production zone
Originally Posted By: What
Your exact point was not clearly stated therefore not understood.

I disagree with your EFL assessment and your choice in referencing the Yakima as being comparable to WGB designated systems on the west side.





your a idiot!
_________________________

Top
#954396 - 03/22/16 06:59 AM Re: wild steelhead gene banks [Re: Brewer]
JustBecause Offline
Juvenile at Sea

Registered: 07/18/08
Posts: 237
Pot, meet Kettle...

Top
#954400 - 03/22/16 08:50 AM Re: wild steelhead gene banks [Re: Brewer]
Carcassman Online   content
River Nutrients

Registered: 11/21/07
Posts: 7410
Loc: Olema,California,Planet Earth
One thing that is probably affecting Yakima steelhead a lot is the summer/fall flow regime. Apparently, if mykiss juveniles are exposed to higher flows of colder water they residualize; become resident rainbows. The irrigation-based flow regime is probably keeping anadromous numbers down because they don't "have" to leave the system.

Top
#954403 - 03/22/16 09:34 AM Re: wild steelhead gene banks [Re: Brewer]
What Offline
Spawner

Registered: 11/05/05
Posts: 870
This is why so called sportsmen will continue sitting on the sidelines watching steelhead go extinct, at the same time the last great rivers are being needlessly engineered into oblivion... Because it's easier for internet fisheries experts to continue doing what they do best, creating further animosity and division by bitching about things they can't do anything about, instead of working constructively with one another towards attainable goals, that yield practical and real solutions.

You ever consider a 12 step program, coupled with some form of psychiatric help Brewer?
_________________________
TEAM Rainbow/Waterfall/Unicorn/Tecate/Zig Zag PRO STAFF





Top
#954419 - 03/22/16 12:10 PM Re: wild steelhead gene banks [Re: What]
Brewer Offline
2112

Registered: 01/11/07
Posts: 4996
Loc: in the mass production zone
[quote=
You ever consider a 12 step program, coupled with some form of psychiatric help Brewer?
[/quote]

12 step programs are for quitters. beer

as for the psych recommendation, no.


i'm not trying to interfere with anything. I just don't see the gene bank proposal as a future fix. yes my personal opinion is like noses, everyone has one whistle

the Yakima R. example was based as a 40 year example.
_________________________

Top
#954428 - 03/22/16 05:10 PM Re: wild steelhead gene banks [Re: Brewer]
Salmo g. Offline
River Nutrients

Registered: 03/08/99
Posts: 13520
Carcassman,

Continuing with your thoughts on the spring flow regime for Brewer's further edification, spring runoff under natural hydrologic conditions begin decreasing after the end of June, when mykill fry begin emerging from the gravel. Irrigation management sustains high flows in July and August for crops, thereby minimizing the hectares available as critical fry colonization habitat (< 1' deep, < 1 fps velocity). Large steelhead and rainbow productivity is impossible in the flow-controlled Yakima and tributaries. Whether resident or anadromous, mykiss reproduction in the basin is associated with tributaries that have the most normative spring and summer streamflows. All those rainbow trout that make the Yakima Washington state's only blue ribbon trout stream, they come from an assortment of small tributary streams. And there are a lot more steelhead spawners in the Naches than the Yakima for this reason.

Getting back to Brewer's allegation that wild steelhead gene bank designations are a joke, I disagree. In each region where WSGBs are designated, streams that have the best extant wild steelhead populations and have the best habitat - looking forward - are the ones being selected. This makes me wonder what criteria Brewer would use to make such designations.

Sg

Top
#954441 - 03/22/16 07:39 PM Re: wild steelhead gene banks [Re: Brewer]
Krijack Offline
Three Time Spawner

Registered: 06/03/06
Posts: 1531
Loc: Tacoma
On the streams chosen for Gene banks, has any study been done to determine the number or percentage of hatchery/wild spawning that takes place. Since introgression seems to be minor after all these years, it would seem this is the biggest issue.

Top
#954464 - 03/23/16 10:41 AM Re: wild steelhead gene banks [Re: Salmo g.]
Brewer Offline
2112

Registered: 01/11/07
Posts: 4996
Loc: in the mass production zone
Originally Posted By: Salmo g.
looking forward - are the ones being selected. This makes me wonder what criteria Brewer would use to make such designations.

Sg


well tell me when anything WDFG has had any success when they've been involved?

I guess a good example would be this. image having a nice car in the beginning (free running wild fish rivers)... then after 60 years of hot rodding, tire roasting, street racing and hundreds of wrecks and tree benders (WDFG).... the car is in now well totaled beyond recognition in the junk yard (now hatchery ruined and decimated rivers) car is pulled from wrecking yard, put into a garage. then wait for wrecked car to now fix itself (GPWF rivers).

just sayen SG beer

SG did you ever see my pm?
_________________________

Top
#954483 - 03/23/16 04:22 PM Re: wild steelhead gene banks [Re: Brewer]
JustBecause Offline
Juvenile at Sea

Registered: 07/18/08
Posts: 237
Your right, it would have been great if the department would have taken this initiative 50 years ago, or even 20. I'm sure the sporties would have been much more accepting then....right.

I think the impressive thing is that any of these rivers have a single fish in them, let alone several hundred. If that is not a testimony to their resiliency, I don't know what is.

I'm fine with laying off of them in a few places and I don't particularly care if you are not.


Edited by JustBecause (03/23/16 04:23 PM)

Top
#954498 - 03/23/16 06:01 PM Re: wild steelhead gene banks [Re: Brewer]
Krijack Offline
Three Time Spawner

Registered: 06/03/06
Posts: 1531
Loc: Tacoma
I think the best analogy would be to say that we have been cutting the grass and fertilizing our lawn for years, and now have decided it isn't worth it and are going to stop fertilizing it and let it go back to its natural state. Depending on the damage done, it could take just a few years to never to get back to its original state. We can decide to speed it up by plantings or other methods, or simply sit back and watch. But the damage done and future limitations we place on the property will be the most important factors in whether it gets back to what it was years ago. If we tear down our house, plant trees, keep out people, a forest may eventually reappear.

That said, I think it is interesting to read the synapse by the department that states economics does not factor into the decision, only the welfare of the fish. Then it talks about fact that the hatchery is functionally obsolete and the current BPA funded hatchery on Abernathy Creek. It no where lists concerns of interbreeding be noted on Gray, but does state it happens on the three creeks. So, I want to know what the overall deciding criteria was in choosing the Gray River option was? The Gray/Chinook has an early returning stock, more opportunity (higher stocking numbers) and a more degraded habitat. Current stock is about 72% of Goal. The MAG has less stocking, a later and more interacting hatchery fish, and a less degraded head water. It is at about 71% of goal.

So, again, what was the reason to choose the Gray/Chinook option if it wasn't economical.

Top
#954512 - 03/23/16 07:37 PM Re: wild steelhead gene banks [Re: Krijack]
JustBecause Offline
Juvenile at Sea

Registered: 07/18/08
Posts: 237
"In 2015, a 16-member citizen work group advised against siting a gene bank on the Elochoman and Skamokawa rivers, but did not reach a consensus on a final option. However, about 85 percent of the comments later received from the public supported the Grays/Chinook option", Le Fleur said.


“Those rivers have a number of advantages over the three streams, including a higher abundance of wild steelhead and more spawning habitat,” she said.

http://wdfw.wa.gov/news/mar1616a/


Edited by JustBecause (03/23/16 07:40 PM)

Top
#954513 - 03/23/16 07:42 PM Re: wild steelhead gene banks [Re: Krijack]
Brewer Offline
2112

Registered: 01/11/07
Posts: 4996
Loc: in the mass production zone
Originally Posted By: Krijack
So, I want to know what the overall deciding criteria was in choosing the Gray River option was?


it's really not so much the deciding factor. it's the pie chart scenario. if WDFG was to stop ALL hatchery production cold turkey persay. the entire state would be in a uproar! (at least I guess it would) WDFG has chosen the "we'll just slowly chip and take from the sportsmen while jacking them on license fees and Columbia river tax fees. license buyers don't know $hit!) which by the way seems very accurate! fridge

in the next 10 years this GB plan will ooze across the state like a terminal cancer. mark brewer's words. just sayen, knowmsayen?
_________________________

Top
#954517 - 03/23/16 07:54 PM Re: wild steelhead gene banks [Re: Brewer]
OncyT Offline
Spawner

Registered: 02/06/08
Posts: 506
Originally Posted By: Brewer
in the next 10 years this GB plan will ooze across the state like a terminal cancer. mark brewer's words. just sayen, knowmsayen?

That's really going out on a limb with predictions. I could have predicted this in 2008 when the Washington Fish & Wildlife Commission adopted its Statewide Steelhead Management Plan calling for the development of wild stock gene banks across the state. Just sayen.

Top
#954522 - 03/23/16 09:19 PM Re: wild steelhead gene banks [Re: OncyT]
Brewer Offline
2112

Registered: 01/11/07
Posts: 4996
Loc: in the mass production zone
Originally Posted By: OncyT
Originally Posted By: Brewer
in the next 10 years this GB plan will ooze across the state like a terminal cancer. mark brewer's words. just sayen, knowmsayen?

That's really going out on a limb with predictions. I could have predicted this in 2008 when the Washington Fish & Wildlife Commission adopted its Statewide Steelhead Management Plan calling for the development of wild stock gene banks across the state. Just sayen.



just so you know this site harbor's many c0ck suckers...

nuff saying. knowmsayen?
_________________________

Top
#954555 - 03/24/16 09:36 AM Re: wild steelhead gene banks [Re: Brewer]
Salmo g. Offline
River Nutrients

Registered: 03/08/99
Posts: 13520
Yeah Brewer, got your PM. Haven't made any springer trips yet. Probably not until steelhead season is over.

Sg

Top
#954693 - 03/25/16 06:50 PM Re: wild steelhead gene banks [Re: Brewer]
Keta Offline
Repeat Spawner

Registered: 03/05/00
Posts: 1092
Originally Posted By: Brewer
Originally Posted By: What
Your exact point was not clearly stated therefore not understood.

I disagree with your EFL assessment and your choice in referencing the Yakima as being comparable to WGB designated systems on the west side.





your a idiot!


your a idiot! Wow.... unbelievable,,,

Top
#954869 - 03/28/16 08:12 PM Re: wild steelhead gene banks [Re: Keta]
Brewer Offline
2112

Registered: 01/11/07
Posts: 4996
Loc: in the mass production zone
Originally Posted By: Keta
Originally Posted By: Brewer
Originally Posted By: What
Your exact point was not clearly stated therefore not understood.

I disagree with your EFL assessment and your choice in referencing the Yakima as being comparable to WGB designated systems on the west side.





your a idiot!


your a idiot! Wow.... unbelievable,,,


TROLLED!

stir
_________________________

Top
#954907 - 03/29/16 11:54 AM Re: wild steelhead gene banks [Re: Brewer]
JustBecause Offline
Juvenile at Sea

Registered: 07/18/08
Posts: 237
I think he was pointing out "your" misspelling of "you're" and how ironic it was, given what you were trying to say....

But hey, that's just a guess.

grin

Top
#954911 - 03/29/16 12:51 PM Re: wild steelhead gene banks [Re: Salmo g.]
Carcassman Online   content
River Nutrients

Registered: 11/21/07
Posts: 7410
Loc: Olema,California,Planet Earth
Salmo

I was referring to late summer/fall flows. The enhanced flow to irrigate or allow salmon to migrate and spawn coupled with cooler water has created conditions more to the liking of a resident mykiss.

Top
#954917 - 03/29/16 03:04 PM Re: wild steelhead gene banks [Re: Carcassman]
cohoangler Offline
Three Time Spawner

Registered: 12/29/99
Posts: 1611
Loc: Vancouver, Washington
Originally Posted By: Carcassman
Salmo

I was referring to late summer/fall flows. The enhanced flow to irrigate or allow salmon to migrate and spawn coupled with cooler water has created conditions more to the liking of a resident mykiss.


A similar mechanism has given rise to the presence of mini-jack salmon. Those are hatchery Chinook salmon smolts that mature to adults, but never leave the Columbia River. They spend their life in the reservoirs behind the dams, and return as mature adults but are only 8 inches long. Not much different than resident rainbows, except they're salmon.

PIT tag data has indicated that mini-jacks are much, much more common than anyone previously realized. They don't often return to the hatcheries because they're too small to go up the fish ladders, so they spawn in the tribs wherever they can, usually with wild fish. They are only found by surveying the spawning grounds with PIT tag detection equipment. Invariably, mini-jacks are hatchery fish.


Edited by cohoangler (03/29/16 03:05 PM)

Top
#954920 - 03/29/16 03:15 PM Re: wild steelhead gene banks [Re: cohoangler]
Carcassman Online   content
River Nutrients

Registered: 11/21/07
Posts: 7410
Loc: Olema,California,Planet Earth
Do those Chinooks die post spawn as many of the hatchery zeros don't. I heard at the Reno AFS meeting that research is finding wild age-0 Chinook in at least some populations that mature, spawn, live, and do the spawn/die thing the next season.

Top
#954921 - 03/29/16 03:32 PM Re: wild steelhead gene banks [Re: Carcassman]
cohoangler Offline
Three Time Spawner

Registered: 12/29/99
Posts: 1611
Loc: Vancouver, Washington
I've only heard of those that die after spawning, as they would normally. I've never heard of a situation where a Pacific salmon did not die after spawning. If so, that would be a big deal.

Top
#954926 - 03/29/16 04:19 PM Re: wild steelhead gene banks [Re: Brewer]
OncyT Offline
Spawner

Registered: 02/06/08
Posts: 506
Those mini-jacks that cohoangler is referring to are 1+ that are from yearling releases, so that would be consistent with the zero age dying the next year. There are a couple of hatcheries in Puget Sound that can accidentally produce a large number of 0+ jacks (micro-jacks), but in my experience all of them died after spawning.

Do you have a link to the paper about maturing 0+ Chinook in the wild. I am surprised that a natural population could attain the growth rate necessary to bring on maturity as a 0+ in the wild.

Top
#954928 - 03/29/16 06:04 PM Re: wild steelhead gene banks [Re: Brewer]
Carcassman Online   content
River Nutrients

Registered: 11/21/07
Posts: 7410
Loc: Olema,California,Planet Earth
I'll see if I can get hold of the reference on the current crop of zeros. I think it may be in California that the recent ones are. The first I read of it was the mid-50s article in Cal Fish and Game. The zeros were able to fertilize eggs and they did again as age-1, when they died.

Top
#955050 - 03/31/16 02:18 AM Re: wild steelhead gene banks [Re: Brewer]
GoldDigger Offline
Returning Adult

Registered: 02/02/15
Posts: 320
http://www.goskagit.com/all_access/concr...3e6d368539.html

Read most all of this thread, and still can't figure out if these "Wild Steelhead Gene Banks" are a good thing, or a bad thing.

Could someone explain what is good about this, or bad...and in understandable English?

Also, why the hell does the Concrete City Council have anything to say about it?

Top
#955051 - 03/31/16 05:13 AM Re: wild steelhead gene banks [Re: GoldDigger]
Jerry Garcia Offline



Registered: 10/13/00
Posts: 9160
Loc: everett
Originally Posted By: GoldDigger
http://www.goskagit.com/all_access/concr...3e6d368539.html

Read most all of this thread, and still can't figure out if these "Wild Steelhead Gene Banks" are a good thing, or a bad thing.

Could someone explain what is good about this, or bad...and in understandable English?

Also, why the hell does the Concrete City Council have anything to say about it?


Concrete is on the Skagit, why shouldn't they have an opinion?
_________________________
would the boy you were be proud of the man you are

Growing old ain't for wimps
Lonnie Gane

Top
#955053 - 03/31/16 07:36 AM Re: wild steelhead gene banks [Re: Brewer]
Carcassman Online   content
River Nutrients

Registered: 11/21/07
Posts: 7410
Loc: Olema,California,Planet Earth
The sad thing is that the gene bank concept anyway requires wild stock in a landscape that can support said fish. That should mean that the local communities and landowners are also on board with what that means.

Top
#955090 - 03/31/16 05:00 PM Re: wild steelhead gene banks [Re: Jerry Garcia]
GoldDigger Offline
Returning Adult

Registered: 02/02/15
Posts: 320
Originally Posted By: GoldDigger


Also, why the hell does the Concrete City Council have anything to say about it?


Originally Posted By: Jerry Garcia
Concrete is on the Skagit, why shouldn't they have an opinion?


Never figured that a city council in a town of 800 would know much about Steelhead genetics.

I've always felt that this type of of decision should be made based on the best science available, and what's best for the fish.


Edited by GoldDigger (03/31/16 05:05 PM)

Top
#955300 - 04/05/16 08:58 AM Re: wild steelhead gene banks [Re: GoldDigger]
Lucky Louie Offline
Carcass

Registered: 11/30/09
Posts: 2286
Originally Posted By: GoldDigger
Read most all of this thread, and still can't figure out if these "Wild Steelhead Gene Banks" are a good thing, or a bad thing.

That is a fair question.

WFC court actions leads one to believe that gene banks are the solution as WFC goes full steam ahead with lawsuits to stop hatchery production and this could prove to be a case of jumping the gun.

If hatchery fish aren’t the culprit then getting rid of those annoying hatchery fish would be a self serving strategic move of the minority before the true answer unveils itself.

A better solution would be to wait and see if gene banks are a godsend before jumping off the deep end and finding out that hatchery fish are not the problem that some make it out to be.


Edited by Lucky Louie (04/05/16 09:27 AM)
_________________________
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
#955305 - 04/05/16 10:53 AM Re: wild steelhead gene banks [Re: Brewer]
Smalma Offline
River Nutrients

Registered: 11/25/01
Posts: 2844
Loc: Marysville
To my recollection the formal idea of "gene banks" arose out of HSRG review of the State's steelhead hatchery program in the early part of this century. The idea was with the uncertainty of hatchery and wild steelhead interactions on the spawning grounds a way to insure that in major steelhead a portion of the wild genetic profile could be preserve by establishing areas where the amount of hatchery influence could be control/limited by ending the release of hatchery fish in that area.

WDFW took that idea a step further by including the need for gene banks in its Statewide Steelhead Management Policy adopted in early 2008. Generally part of the process of establishing a gene bank is a review of the suitability of the wild population as a gene bank and if needed hatchery releases would end. While there were and still are major areas (especially in Puget Sound) that would qualify as gene banks that would not require any new changes in hatchery release but to date had not been formally declared gene banks.

In short the existence of the idea of gene banks and the policy directing the establishment of them had nothing to do WFC lawsuits.

The Skagit is an interesting case. By 2008 hatchery releases had ended on the Sauk portion of the basin; in addition beginning that year the Sauk has been managed under selective gear rules with CnR rules for all fish except fin clipped steelhead. In effect the Sauk exceeds the requirement of being a gene bank and the concept taken a step further by being a de facto wild salmonids management where not only is the population protected from hatchery genetic influences management allows the full expression of full diversity (include alternate life history) of the basin's steelhead.

While still not formally declared a "gene bank" the Sauk is more conservatively managed than any existing gene bank and is three times larger than any designated gene bank to date. Clearly that is not enough for some folks.

Curt

Top
#955312 - 04/05/16 04:11 PM Re: wild steelhead gene banks [Re: Smalma]
Lucky Louie Offline
Carcass

Registered: 11/30/09
Posts: 2286
Originally Posted By: Smalma
In short the existence of the idea of gene banks and the policy directing the establishment of them had nothing to do WFC lawsuits.

Agreed, I never stated that it was.

Their lawsuits are sidestepping that process and if they had their way would eliminate hatcheries throughout the state including steelhead and salmon.
_________________________
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
#955367 - 04/07/16 06:41 AM Re: wild steelhead gene banks [Re: Lucky Louie]
_WW_ Offline
Juvenile at Sea

Registered: 01/30/13
Posts: 233
Loc: Skagit
Originally Posted By: Lucky Louie

Their lawsuits are sidestepping that process and if they had their way would eliminate hatcheries throughout the state including steelhead and salmon.


In spite of the WFC philosophy, these lawsuits, as I understand them, derive from procedural errors on the part of WDFW and the Feds and will not eliminate hatcheries. They will just require the hatcheries to operate under existing law.

Kinda like getting pulled over for doing 10mph over the limit - your license won't be revoked nor will you be sent to prison, but it will cost you some money.
_________________________
Catch & Release Is Not A Crime

Top
#955369 - 04/07/16 08:23 AM Re: wild steelhead gene banks [Re: Brewer]
Carcassman Online   content
River Nutrients

Registered: 11/21/07
Posts: 7410
Loc: Olema,California,Planet Earth
Except that without the permits the fish can't be released. So, for 2 years no hatchery releases, all into lakes. If this year is no plant then there is no hatchery broodstock out there. It means that, because the Feds and WDFW did not meet the law that WFC was able to eliminate most hatchery production without ever having to openly debate the merits.

Top
#955373 - 04/07/16 09:58 AM Re: wild steelhead gene banks [Re: Brewer]
Jerry Garcia Offline



Registered: 10/13/00
Posts: 9160
Loc: everett
Kind of like if you can't ban guns, make the ammunition hard to get/or reduce the amount you can retain.
_________________________
would the boy you were be proud of the man you are

Growing old ain't for wimps
Lonnie Gane

Top
#955392 - 04/07/16 06:25 PM Re: wild steelhead gene banks [Re: _WW_]
Lucky Louie Offline
Carcass

Registered: 11/30/09
Posts: 2286
Originally Posted By: _WW_
Originally Posted By: Lucky Louie

Their lawsuits are sidestepping that process and if they had their way would eliminate hatcheries throughout the state including steelhead and salmon.


In spite of the WFC philosophy, these lawsuits, as I understand them, derive from procedural errors on the part of WDFW and the Feds and will not eliminate hatcheries. They will just require the hatcheries to operate under existing law.

Kinda like getting pulled over for doing 10mph over the limit - your license won't be revoked nor will you be sent to prison, but it will cost you some money.

rolleyes

Sure, just like the Puget Sound Steelhead lawsuit that was settled around April of 2014 between WDFW and WFC.

The settlement went much further than just paying court costs to WFC and after reading the 96 page complaint filed 03/31/16, there is no reason to believe that only court costs will be awarded this time around either.
_________________________
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
#955420 - 04/08/16 05:36 AM Re: wild steelhead gene banks [Re: Brewer]
_WW_ Offline
Juvenile at Sea

Registered: 01/30/13
Posts: 233
Loc: Skagit
Why should the WFC have to pay you and I because 'our' WDFW didn't follow the law? Ridiculous!

It means that, because the Feds and WDFW did not meet the law that WFC was able to eliminate most hatchery production without ever having to openly debate the merits.

But now that card has been played and if WDFW follows the law, can't be played again.

Once permits are obtained the hatcheries will operate and the only way to stop them will be by proving harm to wild and or ESA listed species.

Keep in mind that evidence of genetic introgression is NOT evidence of harm. Proving long term harm is will be a much more difficult task - if it can even be done.

If it can be proved, and we wish to try and stop evolution of these fish in its tracks, then something different needs to be done.
_________________________
Catch & Release Is Not A Crime

Top
#955425 - 04/08/16 09:44 AM Re: wild steelhead gene banks [Re: Brewer]
Carcassman Online   content
River Nutrients

Registered: 11/21/07
Posts: 7410
Loc: Olema,California,Planet Earth
ONCE THE PERMITS ARE OBTAINED. They still aren't issued and until they are the fish can't be planted. The window is closing fast. Again.

Top
#955426 - 04/08/16 10:00 AM Re: wild steelhead gene banks [Re: _WW_]
Lucky Louie Offline
Carcass

Registered: 11/30/09
Posts: 2286
Originally Posted By: _WW_
Why should the WFC have to pay you and I because 'our' WDFW didn't follow the law? Ridiculous!

It means that, because the Feds and WDFW did not meet the law that WFC was able to eliminate most hatchery production without ever having to openly debate the merits.

But now that card has been played and if WDFW follows the law, can't be played again.

Once permits are obtained the hatcheries will operate and the only way to stop them will be by proving harm to wild and or ESA listed species.

Keep in mind that evidence of genetic introgression is NOT evidence of harm. Proving long term harm is will be a much more difficult task - if it can even be done.

If it can be proved, and we wish to try and stop evolution of these fish in its tracks, then something different needs to be done.

So another words, most steelhead fishing in Puget Sound is effectively being shut down while knowingly admitting that there might not be a way to prove long term harm now or in the future. applause Way to go guys----------not

Now they have moved on to the Columbia River lawsuit hoping to unleash the same nightmare with duplicating results and then they can conjure up new lawsuits in Puget Sound in another six months according to the 2014 settlement agreement.


Edited by Lucky Louie (04/08/16 10:02 AM)
_________________________
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
#955441 - 04/08/16 05:27 PM Re: wild steelhead gene banks [Re: Carcassman]
_WW_ Offline
Juvenile at Sea

Registered: 01/30/13
Posts: 233
Loc: Skagit
Originally Posted By: Carcassman
ONCE THE PERMITS ARE OBTAINED. They still aren't issued and until they are the fish can't be planted. The window is closing fast. Again.


If they crossed their T's and dotted their I's on these applications, don't you think WDFW might keep a few breeders around?
_________________________
Catch & Release Is Not A Crime

Top
#955460 - 04/09/16 05:08 PM Re: wild steelhead gene banks [Re: Brewer]
Carcassman Online   content
River Nutrients

Registered: 11/21/07
Posts: 7410
Loc: Olema,California,Planet Earth
Because steelhead are supposed to be anadromous. Supposed to go to sea. What do you think WFC and dos fine-heads would say about a freshwater captive broodstock.

Top
#955477 - 04/10/16 04:45 AM Re: wild steelhead gene banks [Re: Carcassman]
_WW_ Offline
Juvenile at Sea

Registered: 01/30/13
Posts: 233
Loc: Skagit
Originally Posted By: Carcassman
Because steelhead are supposed to be anadromous. Supposed to go to sea. What do you think WFC and dos fine-heads would say about a freshwater captive broodstock.


With the permits in place, it won't matter what they say.
_________________________
Catch & Release Is Not A Crime

Top
#955479 - 04/10/16 08:52 AM Re: wild steelhead gene banks [Re: Brewer]
Lucky Louie Offline
Carcass

Registered: 11/30/09
Posts: 2286
There is no doubt that the feds have opened the door to lawsuits by not doing their job.

Just because you leave your front door open on your house, it isn’t an open invitation for lowlifes to come in and take whatever they want.

The reasoning that it is the homeowner’s fault that the door was open is lame when resources and opportunity are stolen from the whole community.




Edited by Lucky Louie (04/10/16 08:58 AM)
_________________________
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
#955481 - 04/10/16 09:49 AM Re: wild steelhead gene banks [Re: Brewer]
Carcassman Online   content
River Nutrients

Registered: 11/21/07
Posts: 7410
Loc: Olema,California,Planet Earth
It is the community through its votes, its activism, its pushing the politicians that sets the agenda.

Top
#955486 - 04/10/16 10:58 AM Re: wild steelhead gene banks [Re: Brewer]
Smalma Offline
River Nutrients

Registered: 11/25/01
Posts: 2844
Loc: Marysville
CM -
While community involvement can help establish the agenda the reality is that by and large it is special interest groups and their lobbyists that establish agendas for their benefits.

Curt

Top
#955490 - 04/10/16 12:10 PM Re: wild steelhead gene banks [Re: Brewer]
Carcassman Online   content
River Nutrients

Registered: 11/21/07
Posts: 7410
Loc: Olema,California,Planet Earth
I am looking at the overall community that supports the Congress that won't fund NOAA or much else.

Top
#955521 - 04/11/16 06:01 AM Re: wild steelhead gene banks [Re: Lucky Louie]
Lucky Louie Offline
Carcass

Registered: 11/30/09
Posts: 2286
Originally Posted By: Lucky Louie
There is no doubt that the feds have opened the door to lawsuits by not doing their job.

Just because you leave your front door open on your house, it isn’t an open invitation for lowlifes to come in and take whatever they want.

The reasoning that it is the homeowner’s fault that the door was open is lame when resources and opportunity are stolen from the whole community.


The rationalization behind the lawsuits by some among us ends in theft of our resource and opportunity of society.
_________________________
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
#955523 - 04/11/16 08:09 AM Re: wild steelhead gene banks [Re: Brewer]
Carcassman Online   content
River Nutrients

Registered: 11/21/07
Posts: 7410
Loc: Olema,California,Planet Earth
This is supposed to be a country of laws. Follow them or accept the consequences.

WDFW and NOAA consciously chose to either not issue the permits (and blame workload), chose not to to develop workable stop-gap measures that would pass legal muster if challenged, and so on. They simply hoped the "trust us, I'll pull out in time" would work.

The sad part is that the use of the early-timed winter steelhead is most likely lost for the foreseeable future because WDFW and NOAA didn't act. They gave WFC what they wanted with no fight and left the angling community on the bank.

Top
#955525 - 04/11/16 08:26 AM Re: wild steelhead gene banks [Re: Lucky Louie]
_WW_ Offline
Juvenile at Sea

Registered: 01/30/13
Posts: 233
Loc: Skagit
The rationalization behind the lawsuits by some among us ends in theft of our resource and opportunity of society.

Somehow I get the feeling that comment is directed at me. If that is the case let me say this first; I'm not bothered by it in the least - I've been misunderstood by a wide range of characters and I'm quite used to it. smile

Mostly what I do on these forums is to observe what is happening in our world and speculate what the possible outcomes may be based on what I hope is sound logic and without letting my emotions get in the way. Sometimes I even succeed!

If, you feel you have been robbed I would hire an attorney and seek some legal satisfaction...and I would wish you well in that endeavor! It could set a new precedence!


Edited by _WW_ (04/11/16 08:27 AM)
_________________________
Catch & Release Is Not A Crime

Top
#955526 - 04/11/16 08:39 AM Re: wild steelhead gene banks [Re: Brewer]
Carcassman Online   content
River Nutrients

Registered: 11/21/07
Posts: 7410
Loc: Olema,California,Planet Earth
It is obvious that WFC has never met a hatchery that they liked and are more that thrilled to see all of them go away. That will take away harvest opportunity (surely) and fishing opportunity (probably). It is taking this from users who want to kill fish.

But we should not lose sight of the fact that WDFW and NOAA are the ones who allowed this to happen. Anglers are about to lose hatchery steelhead in many waters simply because procedures were not followed. There is uncertainty as to the true impact of these fish on the wild but WFC has never had to defend the science.

If you want to sue somebody for incompetence, sue WDFW and NOAA.

Top
#955528 - 04/11/16 09:07 AM Re: wild steelhead gene banks [Re: Brewer]
Salmo g. Offline
River Nutrients

Registered: 03/08/99
Posts: 13520
Carcassman,

Truly WDFW and NMFS allowed this to happen. However I don't think the story is exactly that simple. It's easy in hind sight to say that during a period of budget cuts the agencies should have dropped some other action in order to staff the HGMPs in order to complete them in timely fashion. I'm not willing to second guess WDFW on this. In many ways the department was struggling to just remain functionally relevant because of the budget slashing. Some of the staff who had worked on HGMPs left the agency and came to work at NMFS, generally helping to reduce the backlog of overdue biological opinions, not work on HGMPs. We are a nation of laws, but the law ignores simple things like agency budgets, and separate courts can and do order conflicting priorities at times. When the budget can fund one task, there is no way that two can be performed.

And then there's politics. The political process defines the legislative mandates of agencies. And the political process funds those mandates. Or not. Unfunded mandates are not at all uncommon among agencies. Talk about being between a rock and a hard place. However the public outcry did get heard by Senator Cantwell's office, and NMFS got two more staff positions to work on the Puget Sound HGMPs. Of course this is all reactive, and it's hard to say how the agencies will respond, if they are able, to the Columbia River Mitchell Act hatchery lawsuit.

Sg

Top
#955540 - 04/11/16 06:21 PM Re: wild steelhead gene banks [Re: Brewer]
Carcassman Online   content
River Nutrients

Registered: 11/21/07
Posts: 7410
Loc: Olema,California,Planet Earth
Salmo

You hit the nail on the head very well. While is see it as the fault of WDFW and NOAA because they were required to do something, the people who held the purse strings are real bad guys. Yet, they are allowed to fly away without blame. And they get re-elected.

But, at least for WDFW, they received more and more of their funds from the license buyers and that is where they should have been focusing the money.

Top
#955550 - 04/12/16 07:50 AM Re: wild steelhead gene banks [Re: Brewer]
Lucky Louie Offline
Carcass

Registered: 11/30/09
Posts: 2286
Good observation Salmo.

These lawsuits remind me of an overdrawn checking account where the problem snowballs if the initial problem along with fees isn’t totally corrected. Lawsuits bouncing around from region to region only puts additional strain on these understaffed agencies.

According to the Puget Sound settlement agreement between WDFW and WFC there is a 30 month moratorium on lawsuits in Puget Sound which ends approximately this October where another round of lawsuits could arrive. At this point with these understaffed agencies trying to put out spot fires as they pop up, isn’t going to help the Puget Sound situation at all.

WFC having already eliminated most steelhead hatchery production in Puget Sound and now hoping for similar results with various species of the Mitchell Act hatcheries on the Columbia River, then open to return to Puget Sound salmon hatcheries as soon as this October is deplorable.

I consider WFC a foe with them attempting to eliminate hatchery fish in this state and the PNW.
_________________________
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
#955552 - 04/12/16 08:24 AM Re: wild steelhead gene banks [Re: Brewer]
Salmo g. Offline
River Nutrients

Registered: 03/08/99
Posts: 13520
Carcassman,

Regarding being responsive to license buyers, this is something I want to stress with WDFW, similar to the old days of WDG which derived most of its funding from licenses, tags, and fees. Since the Legislature wants to wean WDFW from so much general fund reliance, it is most appropriate that WDFW reduce spending on traditional GF expenses: salmon hatchery production that feeds commercial fishing. I think the perfect place to begin exercising that economic and business plan would be to close all non-mitigation salmon hatchery production in Willapa Bay and Gray's Harbor, possibly retaining one chinook facility in WB, either Naselle or Forks Ck for the terminal recreational fishery. Of course this would mean no more NT gillnetting in either area, but those fleets are an economic drag that pays next to nothing and costs far too much. Not to mention that most of the Chinook production is harvested in BC, something I'm not so fond of paying for either.

It's beyond time for WDFW to adopt the paradigm of investing in those programs that return benefits to the people that provide the Department's funding. Director Unsworth should feel right at home with that, coming from Idaho, where the F&W department is funded by the users.

Sg

Top
#955555 - 04/12/16 08:49 AM Re: wild steelhead gene banks [Re: Brewer]
Krijack Offline
Three Time Spawner

Registered: 06/03/06
Posts: 1531
Loc: Tacoma
Salmo,
Do you know where I could find a copy of the budget and revenue stream for the department. I always wonder what percentage of the budget is spent on non-consumer type programs, such as wolf reintroduction, dealing with wild life interactions, invasive species, endangered butterflies, etc. In other words, what percentage of the budget is collected by users than spent on things that would exist, even if no users existed.

Top
#955558 - 04/12/16 09:31 AM Re: wild steelhead gene banks [Re: Brewer]
Smalma Offline
River Nutrients

Registered: 11/25/01
Posts: 2844
Loc: Marysville
Lucky -
While it is fun to paint WFC as the only villain in regard to the demise of Puget Sound steelhead the fact is that by 2012 (before the latest WFC suit) the number of Chambers Creek winter steelhead being planted in Puget Sound streams had been slashed by more than 50% from the pre-ESA listing of Puget Sound steelhead. Those slashes where in response to WDFW's 2008 statewide steelhead policy and HSRG recommendations.

That is not to shift the blame from WFC but illustrate that for the Puget Sound region steelhead fishing has been a low priority for WDFW (at least as measured by their actions).

Curt

Top
#955560 - 04/12/16 09:48 AM Re: wild steelhead gene banks [Re: Brewer]
Lucky Louie Offline
Carcass

Registered: 11/30/09
Posts: 2286
Looking at the players in the game, I would imagine that I will continue to depict WFC as a villain with our hatchery salmon being under attack.
_________________________
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
#955563 - 04/12/16 10:29 AM Re: wild steelhead gene banks [Re: Lucky Louie]
Lucky Louie Offline
Carcass

Registered: 11/30/09
Posts: 2286
Originally Posted By: Lucky Louie
Looking at the players in the game, I would imagine that I will continue to depict WFC as a villain with our hatchery salmon being under attack.

Reason being-- you can try and protect these people for only so long, but their continued actions only shows and brings out their true colors.


Edited by Lucky Louie (04/12/16 10:39 AM)
_________________________
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
#955617 - 04/13/16 08:30 AM Re: wild steelhead gene banks [Re: Brewer]
Salmo g. Offline
River Nutrients

Registered: 03/08/99
Posts: 13520
Krijack,

In short, no. I've never seen the WDFW budget sliced into fine enough detail to make the comparisons you mention. It would probably require a special effort to do so, and I'd venture that they wouldn't want to show it that way.

Don't worry about butterflies and other non-game species. As far as I know, all non-game program work is funded by legislative mandate through vanity license plate sales. I've heard several times that non-game is the best funded program in the department.

Sg

Top
#955634 - 04/13/16 03:15 PM Re: wild steelhead gene banks [Re: Brewer]
Carcassman Online   content
River Nutrients

Registered: 11/21/07
Posts: 7410
Loc: Olema,California,Planet Earth
In some years, the non-Game fund hs, or had, more to spend then the Leg would allow.

It can get convoluted, though. There is lots of land bought by waterfowl hunters that is now being converted into salmon habitat at the expense of the ducks. While rehabbing the salmon habitat is fine, they should be required mitigate 1 for 1 the loss is upland/freshwater waterfowl habitat.

I think the new director, and Commission, are publicly saying that whoever pays the freight should have the biggest say but it is still the Olympia Clownshow that sets the actual funding in the budget.

Top
#955637 - 04/13/16 03:22 PM Re: wild steelhead gene banks [Re: Krijack]
JustBecause Offline
Juvenile at Sea

Registered: 07/18/08
Posts: 237
Not sure this will give you the detail you are looking for?

http://wdfw.wa.gov/about/budget/

Top
#955668 - 04/14/16 12:47 AM Re: wild steelhead gene banks [Re: Smalma]
Lucky Louie Offline
Carcass

Registered: 11/30/09
Posts: 2286
Originally Posted By: Smalma
Lucky -
While it is fun to paint WFC as the only villain in regard to the demise of Puget Sound steelhead the fact is that by 2012 (before the latest WFC suit) the number of Chambers Creek winter steelhead being planted in Puget Sound streams had been slashed by more than 50% from the pre-ESA listing of Puget Sound steelhead. Those slashes where in response to WDFW's 2008 statewide steelhead policy and HSRG recommendations.

That is not to shift the blame from WFC but illustrate that for the Puget Sound region steelhead fishing has been a low priority for WDFW (at least as measured by their actions).

Curt

After going back and rereading the last couple of pages of this thread, I’m glad I did because you make a good point considering the two different time frames we were talking about. Yours pre-settlement and mine was about the 2014 settlement between WDFW and WFC regarding Puget Sound early winter hatchery steelhead. Below is the self explanatory WDFW news release link for those interested in looking at that agreement.

http://wdfw.wa.gov/news/apr2514b/

Still not happy with all these lawsuits that attack hatchery steelhead and now hatchery salmon and steelhead in the Columbia River.
_________________________
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
#955669 - 04/14/16 12:54 AM Re: wild steelhead gene banks [Re: _WW_]
Lucky Louie Offline
Carcass

Registered: 11/30/09
Posts: 2286
Originally Posted By: _WW_
The rationalization behind the lawsuits by some among us ends in theft of our resource and opportunity of society.
Somehow I get the feeling that comment is directed at me.

No, better get those voices in your head checked out. grin
_________________________
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
Page 1 of 5 1 2 3 4 5 >

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
0 registered (), 947 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
645290 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 |