Quotas?, wild vs. hatchery

This may be common sense to most of you that have followed this topic for years, but I was trying to understand something.

Why should the natives and commercials get such a large share of hatchery fish? Ok, maybe I could understand them getting such a share of the native fish, I said maybe. But why should they be entitled to such a large portion of the hatchery fish?

Lets take the hatchery fish reared in state hatcheries and at the tax payers expense. Why should the natives and the commercials not have to cover the total cost of rearing thier percentage of hatchery fish?

Seems to me the hatchery fish should not fall under any decisions except of those of the state or taxpayers. Maybe if the division covered in certain decisions only covered native fish maybe that resource would be respected and cared for in a different manner.

Hope I asked this in the right way.

In a perfect world hatchery fish is all the higher powers want anybody to catch.

The Boldt Decision specifically includes hatchery fish in the 50/50 split.

We wouldn't need hatcheries if we (non-tribals) hadn't overwhelmingly destroyed the habitat and river systems, and the fish runs that live(d) in them.

fish on...

Todd

Here's a thought. Is there any data, opinions, wild guesses as to how much fish was caught, eaten, or preserved (in days before we killers of the resource destroyed everything) by the native tribes? I'm just curious because if the tribes are catching and using more fish today (quantity wise) than when the treaty was written, how could 50% be a realistic figure? (Please don't go to the "because it says so" excuse.) Since refrigeration wasn't possible, salting and drying was the only way to keep fish for any length of time, as far as I know. I know fish was traded amongst tribes, but again, how much? It doesn't seem very likely to me (and I certainly may be wrong) that the quantity could be anywhere near what it is today. Am I wrong?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boldt_Decision


Kind of explains it all. But it's also been expanded to all fish/shellfish in the CR Tribe's UA fishing area's which I've been told could expand as far south as Cascade Head.

I'd be very surprised to find anything other than the fact that the natives in the PNW took a helluva lot more salmon and steelhead than they catch now.

Fish on...

Todd

I don't know it as a fact, I'd just be very surprised if it were not...the number of natives around here was much, much greater than it is now, every piece of running water was stuffed with salmon, and everyone caught, ate, sold, potlached, smoked...whatever...salmon and/or steelhead virtually year 'round.

There are far few natives or fish now, not even comparable...

Fish on...

Todd

There is good evidence that in the Columbia Basin before the arrival of The European diseases the native people were very efficient at harvesting salmon. Estimates are that 25% of all salmon passing the Dalles fishing sites were harvested. In the upper basin there were fisheries on every major and minor tributary, as far as present day Montana and Nevada. It is difficult to know what salmon run numbers were then and they were variable,maybe more so then than now because of the dams. The peak runs were probably in the 1860's after the number of native people were reduced to low numbers by disease. Commercial harvest at the mouth of the river reduced the numbers to values as low or lower than they are now even before the dams.

This article supports what you say.

Seems there was a significant harvest going on, for sure. Much more so that I thought.

Good point 1a. Everyone screams Dam's but do the numbers pre Grand Coulee and after. The purpose of the hatcheries was to mitigate the loss of the natural spawners to harvest. Period.

That they do and the Dam's have not significantly reduced the numbers of fish available to catch. Now that many place a priority on saving remnant populations of naturally spawning salmonids that may or may not be native, that is a new wrinkle. One wrinkle that we have not come to grips with either politically, financially, or culturally.

The Falls thing. If a tribe ever got screwed in triplicate it was this. The Yaks gave up the rez that was almost a third of the state. Got somethings and the right to fish the falls forever, then we buried it under water. People wonder why the tribes have the attitude they do?

Yeah then the BPA gave them each a house for burying Celio that was about as well constructed as a Fema Trailer.

http://www.opb.org/programs/ofg/segments/view/1761


Swiped this from the other board, Tribes never would have come up with an idea as destructive as this was..Man we were good at flocking up the rivers.

but, with habitat destruction going on you cant harvest something that isnt there to harvest can you ?, i think it`s pretty clear that we dont have huge salmon runs on the columbia because we dont have the habitat to support them.

There are some estimates, made at the time, about the number of fish Indians took. I have seen estimates for Lummi and for California.

Need to remember that Indian numbers were way down by the time Europeans arrived and looked at fish numbers. Smallpox and some other diseases got to many of the tribal areas before Europeans.

So, the "take" by the Indians, when it was first counted, was lower than manybe a century earlier as there were less of them around. Conversely, the number of fish may have been higher.

Boat, pre GC the east side of both Wa & OR was wilderness ( or they called it that ) Idaho ag was around as was timber but it was a drop it the bucket. It was FDR and the Rural Electrification Plan & irrigation with water and power from GC they made the habitat changes dramatic. After GC but prior? Sure habitat was impacted as you can't go from a natural environment to and modern agriculture / industrial with out that happening.

The major impact was harvest and not just the Columbia Basin but the Willapa & Grays Harbor also. Even logging did not knock streams out as it was slow moving took a hundred years to work up a watershed. Modern urban cities with sprawling suburbs, massive population growth and tree farms have done and continue to do more damage than the pioneers ever could. Not that they lacked the desire mind you, just did not have the technology to pave and flatten everything natural.

Not many on here can remember "Celio Falls".....I remember the tribe using long handle nets to dip the salmon.

Wow, how time seem to fly......the late 50's saw an end to a way of life!!!!

All the falls in SW WA tribs have remnants of indian artifacts...

Pretty cool when you come across an area that has chippings knowing 200-2000 years prior there were humans there fishing in quite the different fashion...

Keith

Then get rid of harvest. Lacking that deal with it as it is what it is.

we would not be salmon fishing on the columbia.

Hatcheries...and hatchery fish...are just like selective fishing...they're tools, and when the tool is appropriate for the job, you use it...when it's not, it's not.

Fish on...

Todd

what levels of salmon populations do you think we would have right now if there were no hatcheries on the columbia or any of its tributary s ?

i think we would see a massive population crash of wild fish if the hatcherys were closed down.

In some areas, yes, specifically with spring chinook.

In the broad picture there is no feasible way to stop producing hatchery fish. The reason being 50% means 50%, and most people who fish fish to harvest. The problem is there would be not be much money left for conservation.

Until we remove ALL of the dams on the Columbia and Snake, not to mention all of the other dams in the PNW, we will never, ever be able to harvest fish. Only the tribes will be able to. The fish that they do harvest will be populations of struggling wild fish. Sound feasible? Not to me, not right now.

cds, I think what boater's saying on this particular topic, the Columbia Chinook, is that there are a ton of unclipped 'wild' fish out there that are the progeny of hatchery fish that have spawned in the wild in the tribs, especially the ones that have no collection facilities.

While not being good for the actual native fish, it does artificially pump up the "wild" fish numbers, along with the unclipped hatchery fish, that represent the "native" counts on the Columbia...at least initially, there's no doubt that if we stopped all hatchery plants on the Columbia for Chinook, we'd quickly find out that a goodly percentage of the wild fish would be gone, too...because they weren't really wild fish to begin with.

Fish on...

Todd

Precisely... Lots of mis-clips being claimed for wild fish...

Let's not forget that in the 80's there was a year that around 10,000 Spring Chinook crossed Bonneville dam...

Keith

Tell freespool that... He's call you an idiot...

Keith

We're headed down that path already, aren't we? It's been that way before for Spring Chinook, it's soon to happen again....

Keith

It's not about misclips. Hardly any fish get misclipped these days with these new high-tech tagging trailers. It's about stubbies (tribal produced fish with adipose fins), and wild-hatched fish that are the offspring of hatchery fish.

Supposed misclips are a way trashy fishermen to give themselves an excuse to harvest fish with an adipose fin.

To be clear..... To me a mis-clip is a salmonid that is assumed by the general public to be a wild fish with adipose intact that was raised in a hatchery and was "missed" in the clipping process... Yes, they too can be tribal fish released with fins and wild hatched fish that are offspring of hatchery fish....

Let's just say there are a large # of spring chinook salmon that swim up the columbia with an adipose fin that aren't true wild fish...

Keith

Keith,

What exactly is a "true" wild spring chinook?

Sg

It seems as debates and discussions go on through out the fishing forums you read of "wild" fish, native fish and hatchery wilds (broodstocks)...

I guess a better term would be a true "native" spring chinook... A genetic line of fish that was here before white man and still consists of it's original gravel spawned genetic coding....

When did those "native" spring chinook actually enter the Columbia before white man tampered with them? Were they actually an April/May peak run of fish like we see now?

Keith

http://www.times.org/archives/2007/endangered.html

About barfed in my mouth reading that one.....

Keith