Hatchery fish eat wild chinook

HATCERY FISH EATING LISTED CHINOOK
Washington Trout, Native Fish Society File ESA Suit

Coho salmon and steelhead trout released from State hatcheries in Puget Sound are killing and eating federally protected wild chinook salmon. That makes the hatchery releases illegal under the Endangered Species Act. Washington Trout and the Native Fish Society have filed suit in federal court to stop the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife from releasing the hatchery fish into Puget Sound streams.
“These hatchery programs helped drive Puget Sound chinook onto the Endangered Species List, and they've been violating the ESA for over two years,” said Kurt Beardslee, Washington Trout Executive Director. “We want WDFW to reform its hatchery management to stop harming Threatened chinook.”
Puget Sound chinook were listed as Threatened under the ESA in 1999. The National Marine Fisheries Service, which enforces the ESA, has acknowledged that hatcheries have been a factor in wild-salmon declines, and that hatchery operations and facilities can harm and even kill listed salmon. Under the ESA it is illegal to harm, harass, kill, or otherwise “take” a listed species.
Hatchery coho and steelhead juveniles are preying on wild chinook juveniles during the period when the young fish share the same freshwater and estuary habitats. That makes the release of the hatchery juveniles an illegal take. NMFS has cited what it calls “substantial” evidence that hatchery fish prey on wild salmon, and WDFW has acknowledged in written documents that predation on listed chinook from hatchery juveniles “undoubtedly occurs.”
The hatchery juveniles are released during the spring, after the young chinook have emerged from the gravel nests where they hatched from eggs laid the previous fall. The young wild salmon spend several weeks to several months in freshwater before migrating to sea. They are quite vulnerable during this period, and can be overwhelmed by large numbers of hatchery juveniles released all at once into a watershed. The hatchery coho and steelhead are generally larger and more aggressive than their wild counterparts, and much larger than the young chinook. Hatchery coho juveniles can be up to 174mm long and eat other fish up to 46% their own size; hatchery steelhead are released at lengths up to 200mm, eating fish up to 44% their own size. The wild chinook fingerlings are nearly all under 60mm, or less than 31% the size of the hatchery fish.
The problem can be significant. A California study reported that 532,000 hatchery salmon consumed 7.5 million wild chinook fingerlings in the Feather River. Each hatchery juvenile ate an average of 14 wild salmon. If each hatchery coho or steelhead released into Puget Sound streams consumed just one listed chinook, Washington Trout estimates the loss at approximately 5.7 million wild salmon. Significant predation on threatened chinook juveniles by WDFW hatchery coho and/or steelhead occurs in virtually every river system in Puget Sound.
The lawsuit targets 30 WDFW hatchery programs in Puget Sound that produce steelhead and coho to subsidize commercial and recreational fisheries. They have no positive role in chinook recovery. Washington Trout and Native Fish Society filed the suit on March 19, after an official 60-day notice period. On March 20, the groups filed a preliminary motion seeking an injunction to stop WDFW from releasing any coho or steelhead this spring, while the case is pending.
“Releasing hatchery coho and steelhead according to current plans is clearly illegal and could cause irreparable damage to Puget Sound chinook,” said Bill Bakke, Executive director of the Native Fish Society. “It's important to stop until all the issues are sorted out.”
WDFW could apply to NMFS for an ESA exemption for the hatcheries. In June 2000, NMFS adopted a so-called “4d Rule,” outlining ESA regulations for Puget Sound. The 4d Rule included application guidelines to qualify hatchery programs for exemption from some ESA regulations. The applications would explain how WDFW plans to end or minimize harm caused by the hatcheries, or explain how any benefits from the hatcheries might justify that harm. While they have been overdue since January 2001, WDFW has not submitted an application for any of its Puget Sound coho or steelhead hatcheries. If and when the applications are submitted, they will be subject to lengthy agency and public-review processes before WDFW qualifies for the exemption.
Seattle attorney Richard Smith, of Smith & Lowney PLLC, is representing the two organizations. “WDFW has had plenty of opportunity and more than two years to explain how they will fix these problems,” said Smith. “So far they have not taken advantage of those opportunities, while their hatchery programs continue to jeopardize the recovery of Puget Sound chinook. We want them to comply with the law, one way or another.”
For more information, contact Ramon Vanden Brulle at Washington Trout. Filings in the case will be posted on the Washington Trout website (www.washingtontrout.org) as soon as possible.

Ramon Vanden Brulle
Washington Trout
PO Box 402
Duvall, WA 98019
425/788-1167; fax 425/788-9634
ramon@washingtontrout.org
www.washingtontrout.org

Looks like Washington trouts goal is no fish for anyone. WHAT A GROUP OF LOSERS!!!

Could'nt have said it better myself duroboat. What a bunch of loser's.

Sounds like they are working overtime to reduce all chances of having any Salmon or Steelhead for fishing!

Guys, guys, guys....Please take a look at the issue before you start spouting like this.

If this is true, then wild fish don't stand a chance. WA Trout is once again pushing for hatchery reform, which is much needed. They don't want to take opportunity away, and they are no relation to PETA. Okay?

That doesn't sound like a push for hatchery reform, it sounds like a demand of closure. By the rules they quoted, nobody should be fishing for anything. Even a minor mortality rate due to catch and release, is illegal. Not sure I want to join that group. There are less radical ways to help the fish stocks....

If you read Washington Trouts web site it says Allegedly eat wild chinook. They have no sciencentific data to back them up. These fish have coexisted for thosands of years. Do you know how short of time these smolt actually spend in the river (hatchery smolt). They cannot stay in the river for a very long time because if they do they will die, the must get to salt water. This also includes hatchery steelhead because they are not released until they smolt. When we release our hatchery steelhead they were caught in smolt traps at the mouth of the river 3 days later. The distance they traveled was approx. 40 river miles. So wake up. If these clowns win their lawsuit then you can kiss your fishing good bye.

The issue of the ecological partitioning of these species needs to be addressed. Very true that hatchery steelhead and coho juveniles are quite a bit larger than juvenile chinook, but I've always been lead to believe that these hatchery smolts do not rear and forage substantially in the streams after release, but move quickly to marine areas. And once in the marine environment, quickly move offshore.

I sample juvenile salmonids by beach seine just about every year in estuaries (river mouths and surrounding marine nearshore). Here are a seasons worth of results at the mouth of one river (sampling every other week at five stations April - July):

chinook - 1,026
chum - 262
pink - 102
coho - 15
steelhead - 2

My work concentrates in estuaries and nearshore marine areas, not rivers; but the above data reflect the different habitats that juvenile salmonids occupy. Chinook, chum, and pinks are beach huggers while larger coho and steelhead quickly move offshore. The data also reflect that chinook are the most nearshore dependent of all the anadromous salmonids. Although chum and pinks are also shoreline oriented, they occupy these shallow nearshore areas for a smaller time period than chinook.

I don't have the professional opportunities to sample streams as much (though I'd love too!) but I've always been lead to believe that you have a similar partitioning of species into respective habitats. For smolting hatchery fish, at least in theory, hatcheries release age 1+ (larger) coho and steelhead juveniles during spring runnoff periods when rivers are high. The high flows, coupled with the drive to smolt, carry the fish downstream fairly rapidly such that substantial foraging does not occur. In practice, I don't know how complete such partitioning is. After all, we've all caught smolts during the spring while fishing for summer runs.

The news piece posted by Ramon cites the Sacramento basin. With the dam at Shasta and all of the irrigation diversions, has this effectively reduced the ability for juveniles to partition into the habitats that they historically would occupy? (keeping them separate from one another?) If the migration behaviors of hatchery smolts on the Sacramento and Washington streams are different (perhaps due to seasonal flows?), then this would have a substantial affect on the level of predation experienced.

From a scientific perspective; from a life history perspective, this issue needs to be examined before hatcheries are simply eliminated. I don't think it would be hard or that expensive to collect hatchery smolts as they're migrating downstream and do stomach contents analyses on them.

Opinions from any fish managers out there?

the big rainbows in the rivers up in alaska feed on the sockeye fry that come from the lakes to make it out to sea and what not, should they sue because of that, and what about the tiger muskie in lake washington that are supposed to eat the carp and sunfish, im sure they get there fair share of trout and bass and sockeye too, should there be a lawsuit about that? washington trout sounds like there trying to do the right thing, but im sure plenty of wild chinook eat smaller steelies/coho, there view is warped...

Interesting thread to say the least!!! Obviously, I have no scientific knowledge to base any critique (pro or con) on the issue(s) that WA Trout raises. I do however have a common sense observation. That is - I can think of no intervention of man into a natural system, be it forests, fish, or the damming of rivers that has not had a specific and usually negative consequence. Now, we can not turn the hands of time backwards to a time when man's influence was substantially lower. However, it bears some careful scrutiny, not a bunch of knee jerk reactions. I love to fish and when I am on the river, I live to fish. I do not want to lose that opportunity for myself or my kids, their kids, ...... If we could possibly build up the stocks of wild fish to a point where there was a viable and continuing C & R opportunity, I would be extremely happy. Let's see where this goes and work towards a solution that makes sense for the fish and the fishers.

"A California study reported that 532,000 hatchery salmon consumed 7.5 million wild chinook fingerlings in the Feather River."
__________________________________

How do you suppose they got these numbers? Do you suppose they killed the 532,000 hatchery salmon and opened them up? Did they count the hatchery salmon they killed with no fish in their stomach?

Perhaps all the fish were dumped into a tank, and when all the 7.5 million wild chinook were gone, they said, "That's it!"?

I'm trying to laugh at this.....but it's hard not to be sceptical. Sounds pretty "creative" to me.

So, according to Washington Trout, if we eliminated all hatcheries in the state of Washington, there would be enough salmon and steelhead spawned wildly for all user groups? How stupid do they think we are?
Like some group of Orvis wearin', Land Rover drivin', no blood stain, maricured fingernail group of flyfishermen (flyfisherpeople) know about the real world.

Dont other wild fish such as salmon/steelhead/dollys/resident bows also feed on these smolts as well? Why dont you all (WT) just rid all our streams of these fish as well, that would solve everything
Or better yet, why dont you just take "mother nature" to court and sue her. After all she is "polluting" the streams with other species that are "breaking the law" by eating endangerd chinook species.
This whole thing is just silly, I cant believe my tax dollars will go to help the state have to defend this bullsh*t!

RL

Anybody can make a formula, doesn't mean it is right. Remember when all of the fish runs were exhasting in the not to distant past? Now they are coming back strong? Formula's can be wrong. They are nothing more than logical guesses. Kinda like flying over and counting crab or shrimp buoys to get the quota for the recreationals? Gee I guess the catch record card for crabbing showed this formula was flawed.

Its been ten years since I worked at the cowlitz hatchery but my recolection is the smolts only spend a week or two in the system before they were found at the lower columbia...and feeding was very minimal. If my memory is correct(can be a big if ) this is somthing pretty basic and this bunch is reaching pretty deep. I wonder if their motivation may be to get an injuction while they drag out a lawsuit they know they have little or no chance of winning. I mean their claim sounds logical but I was just a schmuck at the hatchery and if I know this it should be pretty common knowledge to the bioligists... I guess I agree with obsessed...
my $.02

Careful Escapee... there are loads of flyfishers on your side of this issue, not to mention lots on this board... dont stereotype us. I'll catch and release with the best of them, but I also love to eat fish too. It would seem that support from ALL types of fisherpeople would be better than fragmenting us into separate, opposing groups, thats part of the reason we get screwed as a user group anyway. we dont organize well.

PS: Orvis gear is really overrated.... I dont know that many flyfishers who actually use it. Sage is local, and far better anyway!

Escapee, Do everyone a favor and keep the anti fly fisher rhetoric/stereotype to yourself and out of this thread.

IF this is true, it's something that I think ought to be looked at.

Yes, other species eat some of them, that's part of the natural selction process that I feel is often left out of our management objectives ... but they've always been there and they're supposed to feed on them per Ma Nature.

If something is out of balance or creating problems, then it needs to be addressed.

It may, in the long run, mean less ops for some anglers. I know that sucks, but sometimes that's the way it has to be. Not wanting to lose a fishery that is important to an individual is understandable, it's simple human nature and we've all been guilty of looking out for oursleves at one time or another in our lifetimes. But once, in a while, you just have to bite the bullet!

This all is said on the basis of IF ...

Who was swimming with the smolts while they ate the chinook smolts? The hatchery fish head to the salt water rather quickly because they are SMOLTS, they are raised in the hatchery not in the rivers. So unless they can eat all the chinook smolts in a week or so there is no problem. The only problem is Washington Trout.

I just got word from one of my sources at the WDFW that a puget sound tribe has done a study on one of the rivers. Now this is word of mouth and my source is trying to get me the data on paper, but the tribe used a smolt trap to catch 1000 hatchery coho smolt and they opend them up and found 0 that is 0 spring chinook smolt in them. As soon as I have the hard Data in hand I will let you know, and so will the WDFW and Washington Trout.

KurtF...Washington Trout is not advocating hatchery reform but hatchery elimination. They have an agenda (and I don't think it is to save fish) and they have joined forces with some rather extreme environmental groups to move their agenda forward. I honestly believe that they either want to stop fishing all together or create boutique fishing for a special minority. I'm really not convinced that they care much about fishing or even the fish for that matter.

eddie: Now that I know who you are I can appreciate your diplomatic slant alot more than I otherwise would have. Being reasonable is the best bet. I think we are starting to make some changes to mend the evil ways of our recent past. I believe some of the things we are doing are working quite well. The WT lawsuit is an extreme measure by an extreme group with an extreme agenda. We should all dig deeper into their motives and try to remove some of the layers of deception so we can make a reasonable decision about the issue. A good salesman can make a case for just about anything.

As far as WT NOT being like PETA...don't kid yourselves.

I would like to see studies done on preditation. Sounds like they are using this as a political tool to close hatcheries.

I echo elkrun and Double Haul's comments...

I know many many flyfishermen that DO NOT support Washington Trout and will never support Washington Trout...

I also know some gear fishermen who, infact, support Washington Trout.

Naive comments such as escapee's do nothing but create a schism within the user group (US) and reduce the chances for our salmonids to recover!

Jimmey-
Thanks for the science!...and thank you for pointing out that comparing Puget Sound to the Sacramento is pretty much comparing apples and oranges.

BTW-
Washington Trout will have to realize they are shooting themselves in the foot!...They are losing supporters and potential supporters everyday. And one of these days...they will have run out of funds...a terrible demise to a group that had so much potential

I willing to put some time and efforts into working against Washington Trouts agenda. What can we and how can we do it. I am looking for someone(s) input so we can have an focused force in the defense of our hatcheries.

I am amazed at how many "sportsmen" immedaitly want to shoot the messenger. I DO NOT accept what Whashington Trout says as the gospel, I, like Bob, think we better find out if its true or not, and if it prooves to be valid then we bettet be ready to make some scrafices.

First Washington Trout needs to proove their contention. RAMONE please tell us who did this study, what were their tecniques, how big was the sample size, how many rivers, how many seasons, was this study reviewed by a peer group. If you have the facts go ahead and convince us. If you convince me I will back you all the way.

I for one am more than willing to forgo a part of my favorite pastime IF I am convinced I need to. I would feel damn shabby if I was so selfish that I was willing to let Puget Sound chinook go extinct forever, simply because I wanted to amuse myself. Conversly, there's no way we should make such a sacrafice unless there is solid science that tells us we need to.

I do not beleive W.T. has any hidden adgenda. And I am certain they have mightly little in common with PETA. Let's not defame them just becasue they bring us news we dont want to hear. But lets make them show us the proof.

"Yes, other species eat some of them, that's part of the natural selction process that I feel is often left out of our management objectives ... but they've always been there and they're supposed to feed on them per Ma Nature."
Bob,
I understand that nothing can be done about the "natural selection process", I guess I just posted a little out of frustration. Seems to me that WT is "barking up the wrong tree" wouldnt other factors such as damns, net by-catch or over commercial fishing be a more crucial factor in the demise of these fish?

"BTW-
Washington Trout will have to realize they are shooting themselves in the foot!...They are losing supporters and potential supporters everyday. And one of these days...they will have run out of funds...a terrible demise to a group that had so much potential"

Sparkey,
I would hope for their sake (WT'S) that they would see it that way too.

RL

If Washington Trout wanted to go after one of the biggest killers of wild salmon and steelhead in the State of Washington they would sue the tribes and the gillnetters....Naturally occuring predation kills massive amounts of salmon and steelhead on their life's journey but nets do a much more deadly job of killing endangered species than hatcheries. The nets seem to be a far more verifiable target for WT...In fairness, I have heard it said that if you are duck hunting you don't aim at all the ducks..you pick one....For WT that duck is all hatcheries.

If they close the hatcheries before they get rid of the nets, MARK MY WORDS! say bye to whats left of the fish! Everybody better start bassfishing. Washington trout is worse than peta, they are succeeding in there stupid lawsuits. Predation happens its part of nature.

I'm not slamming fly guys, I fly fish too for steelhead sometimes, I'm slamming WT. Every time I hear about that group I don't like what I hear. I totally agree that as sporsmen, we have a problem with infighting. If we could get together and agree with each other and focus our efforts we would be much more effective. I think WT works against that idea and acts like it wants to be seperated from the rest of us.

Just an observation: Some fly fishers and wild fish advocates seem to be really holier-than-thou as if enlightened from on high.
They also seem to want what I will call "boutique" fishing opportunities. They seem to want private rivers with no "crackers" or fishermen that aren't like them. They would like a stream or river with only wild fish in it and signs on the banks that read: Fishing by special permission only....Maybe Washington Trout will issue credit card like passes to be worn around your neck to identify you as one of the "chosen few".....

Here we go again. This WT group needs a saltwater enema to help flush their heads out of their behinds. The last lawsuit resulted in WDFW settling out of court, just like I predicted in an old post. This group knows that WDFW will settle out of court because it is cheaper and the WDFW is cash strapped. Ramon is right in wanting hatchery reform, but what he is refusing to admit is he also wants hatcheries SHUT DOWN. WT will not be happy until then. Then they will target catch and keep fishing. When that is done, they will have to go after Orcas, seals, birds, and all the other fish eating animals. Why do we even bother listening to this group? If we all hate them so bad it is time to SUE them. I am sure they are doing something that can be sued for. If each of us filed a suit we could bankrupt them in a matter of weeks. First suit could be for buying a fishing license, that supports hatcheries, which are killing native chinooks. These people are the same ones who voted for trapping bans, higher taxes, and are now holding no war signs. They need to get a life. Or better yet, if they would aim higher then their foot, all the problems would go away.

Grandpa
You have hit a very large nail square on the head, although its not limited to flyfisherman.
I'm just hoping that they wont try to shut the hatcheries down with a court order while they drag the process out.
On the other hand I don't really think we have too much to worry about common sense should show their claim to be based on inaccurate data. hasn't there already been precedent that regional data is just that? Regional?
I guess it seems to me like their claim is pretty outrageous, and just a tool to get the courts to bow to their agenda, after all other groups have gotten extremely good at doing just that.....

I hope Wa Trout knows that they will be responsible for killing more fish than they will save if they win this lawsuit. I have talked to numerous people that said they will kill every fish they catch now. This whole thing is going to turn everyone into outlaws. And for all you that disagree don't jump all over me for typing this.

From my admittedly unscientific poll and general observatiosn on human nature, I conclude that a sizable number of fisherman really do not care a bit about anything other than their gratification, while a roughly equal number are concerned more about the fish and the future.

Calm, concerned anglers like Bob Ball say - let's take a look at the facts and lets do what's necessary. That was not a quote, rather my summation of what I think he was saying. Bob feel free to let us know if I have misrepresnted your views. I especially respect someone like Bob who's livlihood may depend on the outcome, saying let's do what we need to. It take guts to put you principles above your income.

Other's, who shall go unnamed out of desire not to make this a personality clash, say I don't beleive W.T. Or worse yet even if W.T. is right I don't care.

What we need are facts! Not anyone's personal observatiosn, or worse yet their idea of "common sense"

W. T. needs to PROVE thier alegations. I challenge any W.T. supporter to give us solid facts. Who did the study, how was it done, what is the accuracy of samples, was it reviewed by outside sicientists i.e. peer veview?
WASHINGOT TROUT show us the beef. If you have solid, irrefutable evidence I am on your side. If not, I am against you. It's that simple.

Well, THERE'S some clear-headed thinking.

Mad at WT? Take it out on the fish! Man, that's brilliant.

Sounds like you need to tell numerous people to pull their head out.

So I wonder when the fish and game is going to start spraying steelhead and silver smolts on there front lawns for fertilizer. Has anyone heard if the injunction passed? Save a Chinook kill a silver ? ooooooh! now that sounds really inteligent. I dont see how Washington courts are letting them do this with California facts, the water is warmer and the fish are going to have different feeding habits. If your supporting wt trout STOP! Pretty soon well just be allowed to go bird watching, oh wait! maybe someone will sue because the glare off your camera lens disturbs the yellow crested brush thresher.
Next lets kill all the cougars because they eat some deer before they can spawn, Lets kill the all the cats because they eat the mice, lets kill the bats because they eat the poor little bugs, lets kill the goats because they eat washington plants (Oh wait we do that!), lets kill the seals because they eat the salmon (I agree with that one),lets kill bobcats because they eat the rabbits.

Oh no surecatch we definetly would not want anyone to use there own observations or god forbid anyone use common sense lets just all be led blindly by the nose like them anti war punks in seatle right now. People seem to have alot more in common with sheep than we realize.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by grandpa:
[QB] Just an observation: Some fly fishers and wild fish advocates seem to be really holier-than-thou as if enlightened from on high.

Grandpa - the same could be said true for any group. I have met some gear fishermen who think their sh*& dont stink as well. This is still stereotyping and does nothing to help this problem. Honestly, how can the type of rod I choose to use determine the kind of person I am??? I dont let a the treble hook jerking, chum kicking, redneck I meet down on the river cast a bad light on all gear fishermen. Some of the best fishermen I know prefer gear, others like flyfishing, some do both. Its as simple as that, a preference, not a personality trait. These divisions in our user group have caused us to get screwed repeatedly by other consumers of the fishery. It needs to stop.

I would encourage everybody to right letters to washington trout and forward to wdfw.

This is a letter I wrote to washington trout regarding there lawsuit. I also sent it to P.S.A and wdfw maybe this to will change your mind about supporting them.

I found this action very disturbing. Though I disagree with how the state runs its hatcheries. Shutting down hatcheries right now would most likely mean the end of salmon. Would you not say we have more serious problems to take care of first? What about the millions of salmon smolts that are killed due to the commercial seining of herring, not only are they taking the food source away but why don’t you take a ride on one of those boats undercover. I found out about this years ago at point defiance there was literally five gallon buckets full of dead salmon smolts that were caught because they run along with the herring. How about the thousands of wild salmon that are pitch forked and snagged by the local residence out of the smaller rivers and creeks throughout our state. I don’t believe the big rivers were where the majority of are salmon stocks, we have thousands more smaller ones that were once packed with Salmon but now are barren just like are big rivers would be without hatcheries. Talk to an old timer that use to fish back in the days, I do. Hatcheries were not put in effect before the decline of salmon they were put in effect after the decline of salmon. So how can they be the cause? The state spends its resources seemingly more on busting the little guys for things like barbed hooks and not punching there cards after catching the fish. While the big time offenders are having a heyday. Why is this? Are they having to
spend too much money fighting lawsuits? What about the Indians raking herring roe off the eel grass beds to sell to Japan. Once I could run my boat with my eyes closed, stop, look down and see herring! Not anymore. How about people netting salmon just for the eggs? I have witnessed this every year at the Skokomish. they get something like eight dollars a pound for the eggs but almost nothing for the meat so they throw the carcasses away, not even in the river where they might do some good. I could go on and on with more examples of whats killing our salmon but its two something in the morning and I’ve got to go to work in four hours. Your lawsuit appears to be well written and has some factual information, but it just doesn’t make any sense to someone like myself who has fished all over this state and seen so much more destroying the tyee than hatcheries.

"boutique" fishing opportunities....

OK we have all aired our thoughts and prejudices...Hopefully Washington Trout will be seen for the opportunists they appear to be.They will settle out of court again and get their legal fees paid for by the state (you and me)...Then they will plan the next suit if they don't already have one on the drawing board. I think what we need is to come together for some win-win conclusions to our problems. Most all of us on here want to enjoy fishing in our own way with our friends and family. Groups like WT don't give a rip about fishermen and I suspect really don't give a damn for fish ..it is another "cause"...another protest....And I for one am realllllly sick of protestors.

Dude, the kill em all logic is illogical.
When frustration turns to killing fish out of spite, it's pretty sad. What, do they think these fish are WT members?

I am amazed you could see my hidden adgenda, especially since I dont have one. I have said repeatedly that I do not know if W.T. is right or wrong. (My guess is they are wrong, but I am silly enough to want to see their evidence.)

I was simply curious to see what percentage of us would be willing to give up our fishing to save wild salmon. I did not, and do not, say we should, or need to, give up our fishing. It was a hypothetical question.

What I learned is that some folks can't read too well; some don't understand the term hypothetical, and some are truly paranoid.

I was beginning to think that W.T. has some hidden adgenda, simply becase several folks said they did. But now that I see that anyone who even remotly appears to disagree with a popular position MUST have a hidden adgenda. Maybe W.T. is simply concerned about our wild fish?

Maybe our paranoia comes from years of being screwed over by groups that "dont have a hidden agenda", Hypothetically speaking of course... I think most people had a problem with the WAY the poll was worded. It was sort of a "are you stupid?" or "just not very smart?" line of questioning. There was no way to answer without helping the WTA's stance. I dont think the problem was with the way we were reading it, more so the way it was written.

I don't find WT's agenda to be hidden at all...go to their website and check it out, it's right out in the open.

Their agenda is to do whatever they can to protect and perpetuate wild fish runs in Washington.

While this may often time work to the benefit of sportfishermen, it doesn't always.

Last year they fought the tribes, along with PSA, to limit tribal fishing in puget sound...which definitely benefitted the rest of us.

Now they're targeting hatcheries or hatchery practices that affect wild chinook, which doesn't benefit recreational fishers.

The goal is the same...to protect wild chinook. It hasn't changed just because the user group affected has changed.


That being said...it seems to me that IF there is indeed illegal predation upon wild chinook fry by hatchery smolts, then one of two things can be done. One, WDFW can apply for a 4(d) exemption to incidentally "take" wild chinook fry during normal hatchery operations, or two, hatchery smolts must be released before they are large enough to predate upon wild chinook fry.

Hopefully there will be those, and other, opportunities to solve the alleged problem without shutting down all hatchery production.

Fish on...

Todd.

Todd and Bob,

Thank you both for your calm(er) voices in a time of confusion and fear regarding a possible loss of our current fishing opportunities.

As Todd so eloquently put it (paraphrasing here), as sport fishermen we may have to take our lumps to help protect wild fish. But let me point out a possible long-term benefit from short-term pain. What IF after a decade or so, wild fish populations rebounded to the point that they number close to or as high as our current return of hatchery fish? Seems to me, there is a reduced sense of accomplishment we all feel when we take hatchery "brats." Wouldn't it be something if all the fish were natives, and in numbers high enough where the people who prefer to thump them could do so relatively guilt (and hassle) free? Seems like a win-win to me, and I can find lots of fishing opportunities over the next few years or more as we give our native stocks a chance to rebound.

So I say, kudos to Washington Trout for not accepting the status quo, stirring the pot and having the courage to do what is right. At some point, our wild fish have a right to more than just marginal survival, and we as sport fishermen should be SCREAMING at the state not to give us hatchery brats, but to pass legislation helping to pay for increased habitat restoration - the very REAL field work Washington Trout also undertakes. I feel many of you are very short-sighted in your take on this thing. I'm sure you will disagree.

Respectfully,

Back Eddy

Observations:

1) As a group, we're more interested in our selfish opportunity to fish recreationally than to conserve the resource upon which our recreation depends. And some of us wonder why the general public doesn't realize that anglers are the "true" friends of the fish. "Whatever," as my kids would say. But our responses here are the living proof of our collective ineffectiveness at championing our causes.

2) WT's mission is a noble one, and I support it. However, (to adopt the theme of the day) a wise general picks his battles carefully if he can, and does not focus on winning small battles at the expense of losing the war. Just an awkward way of saying that I'm disappointed that WT chooses to engage in actions that have a higher public profile instead of engaging in the actions that could do much more for the conservation of wild fish.

3) WT can sue, but they have to prove their case. Their allegations are flawed. Do larger hatchery smolts eat smaller wild smolts? Of course - if it is in their nature and provided they have the opportunity to do so. Some, if not most or all, Puget Sound hatcheries have been delaying the release of their coho until June 1 to protect chum and pink smolts which are smaller than wild chinook and are favored targets of hatchery coho. Most, but not all, wild chinook smolts are in the estuary by June 1. So, the situation isn't perfect, but a lot of protection is already provided by current hatchery operations. There may be room for improvement.

Secondly, and perhaps Smalma will help with this, I thought rainbow trout (including steelhead) don't usually become piscivorous (fish eating) until they are about a foot long, larger than most smolts. I know that steelhead smolts in a trap box, for instance, will eat anything, including smaller fish, when the opportunity presents itself. However, I think that in the natural environment, their diet is restricted to insects and other aquatic invertebrates until the steelhead become larger. So for starters, I think perhaps WDFW and NMFS will only have limited agreement with WT's allegations.

4) It's not illegal to take a listed species - IF you have an incidental take statement or permit or are covered by a 4(d) rule. WDFW's hatcheries could obtain - and should - such coverage through formal consultation with NMFS, which I'm surprised if that hasn't already been done. But then, I get surprised all the time.

5) Fly fishermen only become "holier than thou" when thou makes nasty dipsh!t statements against them or about them.

Sincerely,

Salmo g.

Just as an aside, it's a good idea to proof read before sending a letter to a group or government agency. A well written letter will hold more weight and make a stronger point.

Writing

Salmo

You did a great job of proving one of my points ...thanks!!!

Quote:

Originally posted by Salmo g.:
[qb] Observations:

1) As a group, we're more interested in our selfish opportunity to fish recreationally than to conserve the resource upon which our recreation depends. And some of us wonder why the general public doesn't realize that anglers are the "true" friends of the fish. "Whatever," as my kids would say. But our responses here are the living proof of our collective ineffectiveness at championing our causes.

Salmo g.

Of course we are... our primary interest in the fish is catching them. Its our interest in catching them that makes us concerned with their well being. Take away the fishing and the revenue that our pursuits generate, who will be left to champion the fish? Well all be on the golf course, or bowling, or whatever. I dont think its selfish to want to have opportunity to catch fish. How will future generations develop the same love fishing without being given the opportunity to actually catch something? Our opportunities are limited enough as it is. I refuse to feel guilty, or be made to feel guilty, because I love to fish. If that makes me selfish, I can live with that.

I bet the thing in the back of many minds (including mine) is the fear that giving up hatchery fish opportunities is likely to NOT lead to larger wild fish runs eventually.

The problem is complex, and reducing hatchery impacts will not equal fish recovery. Fish populations have been in decline for more than 100 years. It has been overharvest, habitat loss AND hatchery problems that have caused the decline.

While WT's goal may be admirable, if coho and steelhead hatcheries are cut back, the end result will be more pressure to take wild fish. Remember, setting fishing seasons is not based on science, purely. It's science and political pressure. I still see harvest of wild chinook allowed, even though the species is threatened and the population is supposed to be recovering.

No wonder the skepticism. And so, instead of just chinook being listed, we could end up with lots of listed species.

When you think about it, the group is called Washington Trout not Washington Kill a Silver Save A Chinook! I think that it is just a bunch of BS. The steelhead and silvers eat smaller bait like shrimp and large plankton when they first reach the salt not chinook smolts.

Good point, the letter I sent was free of capitalization, punctuation, and indentation errors as I have ms word. It was worded slightly better to but I just typed up the above letter really quick before I went to work.

How much data does the Wa trout have on the Puget sound rivers? Absolutley None? My three year old daughter was crying today because fish she fed cannot go into the river. She will not be able to see the results of her efforts. She may be only three but she does understand that these fish will not be in the river for her to catch when she is old enough to go by herself. I hope the Wa trout people think about their actions, because they are not only ruining our fisheries, but the fisheries of the future.

Dan S. The reason I said not to jump all over me for typing the message I typed was for liberals like you who did jump on me for passing a message along. If you have a problem with me relaying information take it up with me in person not on the computer. I live at 7720 guide meridian , Lynden Wa. 98264. I have had enough of your liberal crap. We as sportsmen need to unite against WA Trout, not fight against one another.

That was not baitchucker on the last reply that was the pimpinshrimp. We were on his computer.
Dan S.

The baitchucker and I are two of hundereds of people that think the same way up here in the Northwest corner of the state. We only want to see fisheries for our children and their children. Face it boys the buffalo are gone, the only thing that gives us fisheries is hatcheries. All you liberal *******s who think otherwise can kiss our asses.

One other point to remember here is that WDFW is not the only agency or group responsible for fisheries decisions here in Washington. I haven't seen the lawsuit and I am opposed to it. That is because I think suing WDFW is absolutely counterproductive and also makes an endrun around some other culprits:

The Fish and Wildlife Commission for one makes alot of questionable decisions in favor of commercial harvest (nets)

National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) who has authority over ESA and is also caving to the tribes (nets)

Gary Locke who appoints the commissioners and hired Curt Smitch as his fishing czar (nets)

Legislature in general who are basically not informed with a few exceptions like Bob Oke and Jim Buck. These guys pass the laws tht favor commercial harvest (nets).

So I know WT has picked a target ,WDFW, maybe because they are the weakest in court I don't know. I hope they spend some of their energy on some of these other villians too.

When election time comes , if you want to save wild fish vote the Gary Locke gang OUT OF OFFICE....Write you legislators.

I think we can all agree that hatcheries have contributed to the demise of our fish runs in some way, but this isn't how.

Wouldn't it be more of the other way around? The native smolts in the system gorging themselves on a huge flood of thousands of recently released hatchery fish? As I see it, native Coho and Steelhead are in the river the longest during their smolting period, other salmon pretty much head for the salt as soon as they emerge and can swim. As we have recently discussed, some native steelhead parr stay in the rivers for two years before heading to salt.

So what fish do you think could eat more babies? Hatchery fish that are in the system for a week on their way out, or native coho and steelhead smolts that are living in the system for up to two years, and probably pretty hungry?

I also question the smolt-eating prowess of hatchery fish. These guys have been packed in pens eating Purina Trout Chow for a year. Now when they are released they go downriver hunting down and preying on wild chinook smolts?

Remember WT and TU did not support the BAN initiative either. Apparently their studies showed that nets actually enhance fishing opportunities.

I'd like to see WT bring back native chinook and steelhead to the Cowlitz.

In short, I think it's a joke. It's obvious their goal is to shut down all hatcheries. It's too bad they couldn't conduct some REAL research to determine the TRUE impacts hatcheries have on wild fish. Instead of this bunch of BS!

It's too bad that these well organized and funded groups can't better use their time, effort, and money for causes that might actually help the fish.

Ike

Let me guess, pimpinshrimp. You were having a bad day? Life in Lynden got you down? Well, whatever......I'm just not going to join in your 'monkey-flinging-poop' game....as easy as it would be.

Have a day.

OK, I'll play. So let's say we all throw our faith into hatcheries and ignore the demise of wild runs. Then a few years down the road the state has a budget crisis (gee, is it possible?) and puts the ax to the hatcheries. What will your children fish for after that?
Compared to hatchery fish, wild fish return in greater percentages. And they do it for free.
Forethought doesn't make me a liberal.

Ok I,ll play to.

lets say we keep the hatcheries going long enough to get rid of the nets. Do you really think were going to have any fish to fish for if they close the hatcheries without addressing the damn net problem first? That would be like sending in the humanitarian aid into Iraq before the military. There has got to be priorities and things have to be done in proper order otherwise its all for not!


Liberals

Actually wildfish don't do it for free anymore......somewhere around $500 million per year is being spent on wildfish restoration in the Pacific Northwest. And we've been spending that amount since the mid 90's. I really wonder if anyone has the answer to when that number will ever go away if ever?
SalmoG? Smalma? Ramon? Anyone?

Its like there's three of me this year...

Elkrun,

I'm not suggesting that it's selfish to want to fish. It's the apparent attitude of some of the posters who seem to value their opportunity to fish far more than the fishery resource itself. I value my fishing opportunity a lot, also. However, if I and most of you don't place a higher value on the resource than the opportunity, is it reasonable to expect to sustain a resource into the future? This is not about feeling guilty for wanting to fish; it's about the common sense application that without fish, the opportunity isn't worth much.

And it just cracks me up that so many anglers rush to judge WT's allegations as bullsh!t because they disagree with them, not because they know what flaws there may actually be. Responses like that make fishermen in general look like a bunch of dimbulbs. No wonder political groups don't take us seriously - we're no threat to anyone but ourselves - and a few fish.

Sincerely,

Salmo g.