#1021390 - 02/03/20 10:25 AM
"A Review of Hatchery Reform Science in WA State"
|
Spawner
Registered: 02/06/08
Posts: 506
|
The WDFW Fish Science staff has published one of the documents they have been preparing as part of the ongoing review of the Fish and Wildlife Commission's Hatchery and Fishery Reform Policy. Here are a few take away conclusions from the report: Overarching themes:Hatchery reform is but one of several factors requiring careful planning and aggressive implementation needed to achieve meaningful recovery of salmon populations. Hatchery reform is largely aimed at reducing risk in a relative but not absolute sense. In WDFW’s hatchery system, a focus on efficiency and maximizing abundance prevents widespread implementation of risk reduction measures. Conclusions Specific to HSRG RecommendationsThe principles of reducing pHOS and increasing pNOB to achieve fitness gains in wild populations are well-founded, and should be fundamental goals in any hatchery reform management action. Program size requires more careful scrutiny and scientific justification because it affects virtually every aspect of hatchery risks. The HSRG’s phased approach to recovery has strong conceptual merit, but its implementation has resulted in an absence of stricter, conservation oriented PNI goals for many populations. We recommend crafting a stand-alone monitoring and adaptive management plan for each hatchery program that quantifies both benefits and risks, and explicitly links hatchery performance metrics to potential operational changes. WDFW Fish Science review
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#1021391 - 02/03/20 10:47 AM
Re: "A Review of Hatchery Reform Science in WA State"
[Re: OncyT]
|
River Nutrients
Registered: 11/21/07
Posts: 7429
Loc: Olema,California,Planet Earth
|
Interesting. "a focus on efficiency and maximizing abundance prevents widespread implementation of risk reduction measures". When I was in Hatcheries, the main difference between State facilities and for profit was the recognition that we weren't trying to be "efficient", we were trying to produce the fish and stocks that were best suited to ecosystem.
If WDFW is now saying that efficiency is the goal, then let private business run the show as they will likely do it cheaper. And money must be the only important thing.
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#1021397 - 02/03/20 11:55 AM
Re: "A Review of Hatchery Reform Science in WA State"
[Re: Carcassman]
|
Spawner
Registered: 02/06/08
Posts: 506
|
Interesting. "a focus on efficiency and maximizing abundance prevents widespread implementation of risk reduction measures". When I was in Hatcheries, the main difference between State facilities and for profit was the recognition that we weren't trying to be "efficient", we were trying to produce the fish and stocks that were best suited to ecosystem.
If WDFW is now saying that efficiency is the goal, then let private business run the show as they will likely do it cheaper. And money must be the only important thing.
I haven't read the full report yet, so I'm just spit-balling this, but I suspect the issue of efficiency has to do with how inefficient it is to try to implement some of the broodstock management protocols, e.g. collecting natural broodstock or operating a weir to control the spawning of hathery origin returns. Those types of things are certainly less efficient in terms of time, money and personnel than simply operating hatcheries as we have in the past, and in many cases, still do. That would seem to fit in with the other thought that the desire to maximize abundance (I'm guessng in terms of the size of the hatchery program and therefore abundance of hatchery fish returning) prevents being able to implement risk reduction measures like more conservation minded broodstock protocols. Again, just a guess before I read the report.
Edited by OncyT (02/03/20 12:00 PM)
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#1021426 - 02/03/20 05:59 PM
Re: "A Review of Hatchery Reform Science in WA State"
[Re: OncyT]
|
Fry
Registered: 12/19/18
Posts: 27
|
There is some really good data in this document: In 2006, non-treaty commercial salmon fisheries in Washington generated a gross revenue of $7 M, which represents harvest and seafood revenue minus fishing and processing costs (TCW Economics 2008). The 2006 economic impacts of non-treaty commercial salmon fisheries was estimated at $21 M and 507 jobs, which includes the direct personal income and secondary, indirect benefits to local economies of the persons employed in the fishing industry spending their earnings (TCW Economics 2008). Wegge (2008) estimated the direct plus indirect economic impacts of Washington’s 120 salmon and steelhead hatchery programs; across the Puget Sound, Washington Coast, and Lower Columbia regions, the total contribution of non-treaty commercial fisheries to personal income was approximately $14 M. The 2006 total economic impact (again, direct and indirect personal income) of all Washington State recreational fisheries, not just salmon and steelhead, was estimated at $393 M (TCW Economics 2008). Salmon and steelhead fisheries totaled 39% across all recreational fisheries of a different metric, net economic value (described below under Social and cultural section), so we suggest a coarse economic impact of $153 M for Washington’s recreational salmon and steelhead fisheries. Furthermore, Wegge (2009) estimated the economic impact of Washington’s hatcheries to salmon and steelhead recreational fisheries in Puget Sound, Washington Coast and Lower Columbia at $54 M.]
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#1021437 - 02/03/20 11:31 PM
Re: "A Review of Hatchery Reform Science in WA State"
[Re: OncyT]
|
Juvenile at Sea
Registered: 04/04/10
Posts: 199
Loc: United States
|
The surprising thing in OncyT's summary is the self criticism of WDFW operations from a WDFW report. It is difficult to put out a report from within an agency that says something other than glowing comments. CM: I dont think that ecosystem concerns were ever a main driver in WDFW hatcheries; at best perhaps acknowledgement of "ecosystems" but not enough to dramatically alter programs. "More is better" has been the primary motivator for hatcheries up until recently.
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#1021442 - 02/04/20 07:06 AM
Re: "A Review of Hatchery Reform Science in WA State"
[Re: OncyT]
|
River Nutrients
Registered: 11/21/07
Posts: 7429
Loc: Olema,California,Planet Earth
|
There was a big difference back then. WDF utilized "local" stocks. They did transfer stuff around but then used the returns to maintain the program. WDG used the mothership model which was much more economical.
For trout and various lakes (high and low) they maintained a variety of stocks rather than a single one-size fits all which is (again) cheaper.
My point was that, in the past at least, WDFW used local stocks which are less economical than a mothership operation which is why the agency, back then anyway, was certain that their operations were, overall, better for the State economically than just going cheap and buying the fish from private growers.
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#1021457 - 02/04/20 10:36 AM
Re: "A Review of Hatchery Reform Science in WA State"
[Re: Carcassman]
|
My Area code makes me cooler than you
Registered: 01/27/15
Posts: 4549
|
Interesting. "a focus on efficiency and maximizing abundance prevents widespread implementation of risk reduction measures". When I was in Hatcheries, the main difference between State facilities and for profit was the recognition that we weren't trying to be "efficient", we were trying to produce the fish and stocks that were best suited to ecosystem.
If WDFW is now saying that efficiency is the goal, then let private business run the show as they will likely do it cheaper. And money must be the only important thing.
LOL. Don't wanna cut into the pension donation pot. Gotta keep real. And fail. Efficiency!!!! Still laughing.
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#1021458 - 02/04/20 10:38 AM
Re: "A Review of Hatchery Reform Science in WA State"
[Re: Carcassman]
|
Spawner
Registered: 02/06/08
Posts: 506
|
There was a big difference back then. WDF utilized "local" stocks. They did transfer stuff around but then used the returns to maintain the program. WDG used the mothership model which was much more economical.
For trout and various lakes (high and low) they maintained a variety of stocks rather than a single one-size fits all which is (again) cheaper.
My point was that, in the past at least, WDFW used local stocks which are less economical than a mothership operation which is why the agency, back then anyway, was certain that their operations were, overall, better for the State economically than just going cheap and buying the fish from private growers. WDF may have preferred using local stocks, but had no problem backfilling eggs from other sources when there weren't enough of the local stocks available to make program. When starting new programs, it was also common to simply transfer in eggs or fish from an existing hatchery program, even if it were in a different watershed, rather than collecting local broodstock.
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#1021463 - 02/04/20 11:47 AM
Re: "A Review of Hatchery Reform Science in WA State"
[Re: WDFW X 1 = 0]
|
River Nutrients
Registered: 03/03/09
Posts: 4413
Loc: Somewhere on the planet,I hope
|
And money must be the only important thing.
Well yes in a manner of speaking. To WDFW the most important thing is BUDGET, period. The agency will do everything possible to maintain the current staffing and how they do business even if it short changes the tax payer, license buyers, and the resource. It is what it is.
_________________________
Dazed and confused.............the fog is closing in
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#1021566 - 02/05/20 10:50 AM
Re: "A Review of Hatchery Reform Science in WA State"
[Re: OncyT]
|
Fry
Registered: 12/19/18
Posts: 27
|
Has anyone in hear actually read or skimmed the document? It took me about an hour to go through it. This is a really important document for policy making- it is extremely balanced and even handed when assessing the pros and cons of hatcheries. It actually outlines programs that work, programs that aren't working and knowledge gaps.The fact that the agency published this document is a huge step in the right direction and there are forum members in here more dedicated to circle jerking anti-WDFW posts. This document acknowledges the failures of the current hatchery programs and suggests modern approaches and largely supports 100% broodstocking programs for conservation and harvest minded hatcheries. It also acknowledges that over production of chum and pink salmon by Alaska, Japan and Russia may be impacting our hatchery production in Washington. Another thing not often considered by the pro-hatchery crowd is highlighted in the document as well: out competition of natives by hatchery releases in habitat limited environments. Releasing large chinook smolts can result in native fish being eaten or simply out-muscled by the larger fish.
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#1021569 - 02/05/20 11:07 AM
Re: "A Review of Hatchery Reform Science in WA State"
[Re: OncyT]
|
My Area code makes me cooler than you
Registered: 01/27/15
Posts: 4549
|
That's great. I approve. Now turn the printed word into fish instead of the continued circle jerking..
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#1021573 - 02/05/20 11:40 AM
Re: "A Review of Hatchery Reform Science in WA State"
[Re: blenny]
|
River Nutrients
Registered: 03/03/09
Posts: 4413
Loc: Somewhere on the planet,I hope
|
Ah, BL all of this was known ( minus the AK bit ) in the 90's. It is not that this was not known but rather the agency chose not to change. I seriously doubt that the agency will feel the need to upend the cart now. The Science Division does not rule the roost but rather Fish Program does and they are all about harvest.
Edited by Rivrguy (02/05/20 11:43 AM)
_________________________
Dazed and confused.............the fog is closing in
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#1021656 - 02/05/20 07:56 PM
Re: "A Review of Hatchery Reform Science in WA State"
[Re: OncyT]
|
Spawner
Registered: 02/06/08
Posts: 506
|
In case anyone wants to comment on this report or the review of the hatchery policy it is on the Fish and Wildlife Commission's agenda at their meeting tomorrow:
THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 6, 2020
8:00 AM Hatchery Policy Review Emerging Science Report Workshop – Briefing, Public Comment
Location: Room 172 Staff will brief the Commission on the key findings of the recently completed science report titled, “A review of hatchery reform science in Washington State.” Staff Report: Joe Anderson, Research Scientist and Ken Warheit, Supervisor of Genetic and Fish Health Laboratories
Public Comment – This Item Only
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#1021685 - 02/06/20 05:59 AM
Re: "A Review of Hatchery Reform Science in WA State"
[Re: OncyT]
|
River Nutrients
Registered: 11/25/01
Posts: 2844
Loc: Marysville
|
What shapes much of the conversation around hatchery, recovery and many of our fisheries issues has been the dramatic decline in marine smolt to adult survivals; especially for Puget Sound stocks.
In the last 40 years the information I can dig up show that for steelhead, coho, and Chinook the fish returning to Puget Sound have seen an 80 to 90% decline in that smolt to adult survival. That survival decline appears to be occurring at significantly accelerated rates than that of the ocean as a whole.
Those declines not only limits the returns from given hatchery releases but also the success of wild escapements. In addition those poor returns negate or limits the benefits from freshwater restoration work.
As interesting aside to the whole decline of Puget Sound smolt to adult survivals has been that with at least the coho and steelhead that decline occurred first or happened faster in the South Sound but now is a PS wide program.
Curt
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#1021688 - 02/06/20 07:23 AM
Re: "A Review of Hatchery Reform Science in WA State"
[Re: OncyT]
|
River Nutrients
Registered: 11/21/07
Posts: 7429
Loc: Olema,California,Planet Earth
|
I remember when we first noticed the deep SS problem. It was with yearling smolts, primarily. What really struck me was when we saw Yearling Chinook from Minter doing worse that the same stock, but fingerlings, released in White River. Made it look like the problem was at or north of the Narrows.
At that time, I found it hard to say the problem was in-Sound (Itself) as the season cutts and native char were both doing well and increasing and they lived their whole life in that selfsame Sound.
I don't know if the cutts and char are still increasing but I do know that the cutts are supporting targeted/guided fisheries.
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#1021699 - 02/06/20 09:44 AM
Re: "A Review of Hatchery Reform Science in WA State"
[Re: OncyT]
|
Juvenile at Sea
Registered: 01/30/13
Posts: 233
Loc: Skagit
|
something wrong with the link this morning. Takes me to Homeimprovement.com
_________________________
Catch & Release Is Not A Crime
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#1021758 - 02/07/20 03:37 PM
Re: "A Review of Hatchery Reform Science in WA State"
[Re: OncyT]
|
River Nutrients
Registered: 01/17/04
Posts: 3742
Loc: Sheltona Beach
|
HRS was meant to be a part of the solution. Hydro and Habitat have changed for the better. Harvest continues to be a problem.
The gill net folks say how they handle less b-run steel head with larger mesh. The thing missed is the ones captured and handled are the ones that could have been major contributors. Them of greater fecundity.
_________________________
When we are forgotten, we cease to exist . Share your outdoor skills.
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#1021763 - 02/07/20 04:57 PM
Re: "A Review of Hatchery Reform Science in WA State"
[Re: slabhunter]
|
Repeat Spawner
Registered: 12/06/07
Posts: 1385
|
HRS was meant to be a part of the solution. Hydro and Habitat have changed for the better. Harvest continues to be a problem.
The gill net folks say how they handle less b-run steel head with larger mesh. The thing missed is the ones captured and handled are the ones that could have been major contributors. Them of greater fecundity. In reality, what is the gill net impact on Columbia river Steelhead? Is it factually known? We can make all the assumptions we want, and I agree think they F up lots while handling. But does anyone really know other than those on board? Why not have observers on every boat? Make that a requirement for every licensed commercial fisher. I would volunteer to be an observer even if it meant the threat of walking the plank.
_________________________
"Life moves pretty fast. If you don't stop and look around once in a while, you could miss it.” – Ferris Bueller. Don't let the old man in!
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#1021766 - 02/07/20 05:52 PM
Re: "A Review of Hatchery Reform Science in WA State"
[Re: OncyT]
|
River Nutrients
Registered: 11/21/07
Posts: 7429
Loc: Olema,California,Planet Earth
|
Way back with separate agencies, WDG rules mandated that all steelhead caught in nets be released.Period, Live, dead. And, there was no accounting. I know of one CR fishery where one guy retained, because they were dead, 400 pounds of steelhead (20 fish). They were donated. He also released any that were live. We (the State) made a conscious decision to not know what was going on.
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#1021776 - 02/08/20 08:03 AM
Re: "A Review of Hatchery Reform Science in WA State"
[Re: slabhunter]
|
Alevin
Registered: 10/29/15
Posts: 15
|
HRS was meant to be a part of the solution. Hydro and Habitat have changed for the better. Harvest continues to be a problem.
The gill net folks say how they handle less b-run steel head with larger mesh. The thing missed is the ones captured and handled are the ones that could have been major contributors. Them of greater fecundity. You really make yourself look extremely unintelligent and pretty much clueless when you say things like “Hydro and Habitat have changed for the better”. You clearly have no idea what’s going on.
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
2 registered (Excitable Bob, 1 invisible),
546
Guests and
3
Spiders online. |
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
11498 Members
16 Forums
63778 Topics
645372 Posts
Max Online: 3001 @ 01/28/20 02:48 PM
|
|
|