A Most Practical And Realistic Point Of View

https://salmonchronicles.com/

Why do people think that sportsmen will make the decisions on what is hatchery and what is wild?
These articles are preaching to the choir but the decisions will be made by people who could care less about sport fishing. So let’s start preparing for that and planting every species of fish in areas where fish are extirpated. That’s all we are going to have left.

Count me among the salmon RACISTS!

"Because the damage is already done" is BS justification for doing anything. That's all I will say.

If you want wild salmon, if you want naturally spawning runs, just stop planting hatchery fish. Regardless of their genetic history, crossing, "genetic pollution", and whatever if you STOP putting any hatchery fish on the grounds and let the remaining spawners spawn you will end up with wild fish that are genetically adapted to the current situation. Anybody who thinks that if we could bring genetically pure salmon back from 5000 BCE and that these genetic super fish would quickly repopulate and outcompete existing fish simply down's understand evolution, geologic, and climate change.

To ALL participating in this thread.

The link above was posted yesterday to draw attention to John Beath's piece.... promoting the "fish is a fish is a fish" agenda.

To appreciate the full context of this issue, make sure to read each blog entry starting with Ron Garner's letter to the Senate Committee on Feb 11. The next piece on Feb 12 expounds on Beath's "a fish is a fish" position. The third piece today Feb 13 is Pat Patillo's rebuttal to Beath's blog entry.

Count me among the supporters of the reasoned response delivered by Mr. Patillo.

Thanks, Pat!

Not all hatchery fish are created equal.
King of the reach comes to mind...

Nice article by Patillo.

I agree with Salmo g.

Interesting that John Beath, who worked at Rivers Inlet and holds a line class record for a 51 lb Chinook on 6 lb test, has a "fish is a fish is a fish" attitude.

The "Fish is a fish is a fish" war cry is promoted only by those who stand to profit from maximally exploiting the resource REGARDLESS of the perilous consequences it may pose for wild fish populations.

I know from experience that the thinking in the 70s was just that, a fish was a fish and they were reasonably interchangeable. Research has proven that wrong.

What i think most folks don't get, or don't want to get, is that our ability to exploit fish (and other naturally-produced resources) exceeds the ability of the system to produce them.

For argument's sake, let's say that the only thing holding down Chinook recovery in PS is habitat. But, in order to maximize our rate of recovery we simultaneously close all fisheries on Chinook and fully fund all the habitat restoration so that in 4 years we have fully "restored" habitat. How many Chinook will that fully functional habitat produce? We have that number. How many can we all catch? We have that number too. Is that catch number of purely wild fish as large as the mixed, primarily hatchery number we have today?

On one PS river, the goal of the tribe there was an annual harvest of 20K hatchery Chinook. Personally, I believe that at ecosystem-based goals, wild fish could support this but who would put 200K Chinook on the grounds? Anyway, the "best" models suggest a much lower sustainable harvest of wild fish.

If we want to insist on killing a lot of fish, and living in the PNW, and letting the human population grow, then hatchery production is the only viable answer.

And we haven't even talked about the fact that the North Pacific, right now, can't support the Chinook and coho going out there.