Scientists Report on Hatchery Reform

Craig Welch of the Seattle Times ran a story on hatchery reform this morning on page B1. Here are some highlights:

A panel of scientists reported back yesterday after spending over three years evaluating more than 100 salmon and steelhead hatcheries in coastal Washington and in Puget Sound. The panel recommended over 500 changes to the hatchery system, the world's largest.

Barbara Cairns, executive director of Long Live The Kings , heads reform efforts that began in 2000 with the so-called hatchery Scientific Review Group, a panel of scientists. The group was charged with ensuring that science came first when advising governments how to revamp the region's hatcheries. ...Cairns said: " it's the first time you've ever had a group working this carefully and this systematically."

Current budgets in the state include another $7 million for this program. Everyone realizing how important the hatchery system is to the economy. WDFW director Koenings said: " It is THE cash flow in a lot of our communities." The system supports hundreds of jobs and produces 75% of the salmon caught in Puget Sound and 90% of those in the Columbia River system.

Few dispute the quality of the science behind the report. Bob Lohn, regional administrator for NOAA Fisheries, the federal agency that oversees salmon recovery, says: " It's great stuff, and we intend to use it.

" But hard decisions are yet to come. By 2004, the science panel will recommend ways to ensure its proposals are instituted by various governments that run hatcheries Thosed changes will take years and cost millions."

I urge you to read the whole story in the Times. It shows that a lot of work has been going on to reform the messed up hatchery system here in Washington and it also points out that it won't happen over night. While this really large group works to recommend changes and the government finds money in this horrible economy to support the reforms , Washington Trout is not at the table with them..they are in court suing WDFW to suck out some of that scarce funding to pay their lawyers and throw parties to raise more money to sue more people and throw more parties to raise more money to sue more people.......................

Grandpa - you are picking up speed and gaining momentum. Right now it is 51% to 49% in favor of what WT is doing for me. Shaky support indeed. Good work.

Or could it possibly be that WT is right and the hatchery system needs to be pushed into compliance?

Times article

Amen Sinktip.

Man if my review came in at work with 500 things i needed to do different I would be fired. Heck if came back with 20 things I was doing wrong I would be fired.

"You have many hatchery programs whose purpose is not immediately apparent, some exist solely for the benefit of harvest even though no one is fishing there, and some are producing fish in areas where the habitat is so bad it can't even support them all," said Barbara Cairns, executive director of Long Live the Kings.


Having a hatcher where no one can fish for them that makes sense. I beleve the wenatchee is that way. It is closed but they still plant hatcher fish. that is healthy for the few wild fish left.

JJ

Solving whatever the issues are is a resource problem. Suing the Government will just take away funds that could have been used to solve problems, not pay lawyers and court costs.

It is the fact that wt is not involved with lltk that makes me suspicios.lltk has made huge strides towards hatchery reform and the use of hatcheries to bring back our declining stocks.If wt was really interested in hatchery reform then you would think that they would have more to do with ltk.

On the other hand I am not a fan of our hatcheries and there use to pasify the masses with fish to kill.The truth of the matter is that there is not a system in the state thats wild fish are not declining and I firmly believe that whatever has to be done to curb this needs to be done.If it is proven with science that the introduction of hatchery fish into a system is harming our wild stocks then the hatchery fish needs to be removed.If that means that I no longer can fish my favorite rivers,which it would,then so be it.At least maybe the kids that I have been fortunate enough to introduce to fishing might have a chance at catching a wild fish.

Gee, I dunno Aunty, maybe cause LLTK is an independent, non-profit advisory council?

They are not the entity charged with operating the hatcheries, merely a "consultant" in the hatchery reform process.

What would WT have to gain by suing them?

You know me Aunty! Yep, that was really stretching the boundaries! How on earth could I have gotten the idea that you didn't REALLY mean: "Gee, I wonder why Long live the Kings isn't listed in the WT lawsuit?"

Unless of course you are willing to concede that at times you don't say what you really mean? :p

Funny AuntyM. I just now noticed/read your signature.

Gill nets are one of the most selective types of fishery techniques/methods out there being used today! Why should they be banned? Your signature confuses me.

Funny seeing those two sentences side by side in your signature.

Oxus, meet Moros, Moros, meet Oxus.



Ob:Anything-useful. No. I'm staying far away from the WT/Anyone else debate. I just liked AuntyM's signature. It put a smile on my face!

The Long Live The Kings organization was instrumental in getting that great estuary habitat project on the Sky to happen. The scientific findings on the Washington hatcheries just came out. The governor, NMFS, NOAA, the tribes and several politicians applauded it and appropriated money to implement some of the solutions to the identified problems we have with the hatcheries. Sure this has been a long road with a projected multi-year solution in motion but we are moving forward with solutions.

Sorry that the "old horse" has to be beaten over and over again but in the midst of all this progress Washington Trout goes to court to circumvent the process in an attempt to close all the hatcheries. Is it really that hard to see the folly in that? Is it just possible that the people working on the solutions are good hearted and will ultimately succeed? Isn't it also possible that forces other than hatcheries are at work destroying our wild fish runs? Can we solve the problems without hurting the masses for the gratification of the few? I think we can and we are.

Parker,
What is your logic behind this? Gillnets are pretty indiscriment on what they catch.

The WT bashers ought to read the ISRG report before they get too excited...it calls for LOTS of reform, including closing some hatcheries that flat out don't work.

Other than that, though, there are lots more common sense and legally required reforms in the report, and it will be exciting to see how it all shakes out in the future.

Fish on...

Todd.

I have read the report and realize that the reforms are many and all long overdue. It is the lawsuit that I object to and Ramon's distortion of the facts.

i agree grandpa and must add that ramon has done a terrible job as communication director for wt.

Parker...Huh??? Gillnets are specific How???
I gotta hear this!
Explain to me how a gill net treats a hatchery fish any different than a wild fish. The only thing I can think of thats worse than a gill net ( and I know some of you will correct me here) is a trawler! And at least some of the fish they kick loose will live...

As far as the WT lawsuit...
I cannot support a group that has fundraising as the basis for a suit. It looks to me like WT is hoping that WDFW will settle for dollars NOT REFORM! I think anyone who works for or with WDFW will back me up when I say that it is a typical beurocracy(sp). Most of the people who work there have the best intrest of the fish in mind, but its hard to get a 500lb gorilla to do whats right instead of what he wants. All it takes is one or two people to put their political intrest ahead of the fish and you get what we have now...LLTK seems to be addressing these issues, WT is raising money...

My much abbr. $.02

Correct me if I'm wrong but when Parker said selective I don't think he is refering to wild or hatchery, rather species. Sportsmen can't be specific or selective when fishing for wild or hatchery either till you can see the fish. Thats why we have catch and release of wild or non targeting fish.

Gillnets and Trawlers are very specific in the sepecies they target. It is all in how you target the species.

Factory Trawlers are are equiped with some of the most advanced nettings and sonar system . No it can't differentiate a wild or hatchery fish ( it really doesn't matter anyways , since the species they target don't have a hatchery origin) but it will do a lot better job then you and your boat will.

Reason for Trawlers, Trollers, Gillnets, Seiners, Long liners, are because they are targeting a selective fisheries. At the same time you you can use these vessels to be non selective but I have not seen any of that for more then 15 years , not by American fisheries .

No AuntyM, Parker isn't the one confused by the definition of selectivity as it pertains to a fishery.

Thanks Divers, as that saved my fingers some typing time.

Link to full report:

http://www.longlivethekings.org/pdf/HSRG_Recommendations_Mar_03.pdf

One of my favorite parts...

"In the past, hatchery programs have too often been evaluated on the basis of the number of fish released. This is akin to evaluating a farm by the number of seeds planted."

sounds familiar:

http://www.ifish.net/cgi-local/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=26;t=003079

"I agree that to do a cost benefit analysis you must have both cost and benefits, however, the powers that be have been telling us for many years what the benefits were but would never pony up the costs. ODFW when asked would give the price per smolt at each facility but would never calculate the price per returning adult. This is analogous to a farmer calculating the price per seed planted and the number of acres sown but not calculating the total benefit from harvest"

great thinkers think alike huh

Parker/Divers, I have to disagree with you guys on this one.

I can't believe that you would both think that "Gill nets are one of the most selective types of fishery techniques/methods out there". The only thing that a "gill net" is capable of selecting is the "minimum size" of its catch! They do not select the specie, be it wild/hatchery, or endangered. The guy at the other end of the net is person who makes that decision!

How many species do you think have been almost totally eliminated because of this "most selective techniques/method"? Better yet, let me give you an example, that I will challenge the net lovers to counter debate! During the Cowlitz River Relicensing period (6years) the region 5 (Vanccuver) people in WDFW were faced with some hard decisions to make.

Because NMFS had proposed listing the lower Columbia winter-run steelhead as an endangered specie, WDFW was forced to make a decision that actually sacrificed the possibility of any recovering of the Cowlitz early run winter steelhead! Here's how it worked; The Cowlitz is one of, if not the number one producer of coho for the Columbia River Gill net fishery.

If WDFW was to continue their Columbia River "coho gill net fishery", something had to give with the conflict between the early returning Cowlitz River winter run steelhead and coho!

Guess who lost? You can not have a Restoration/Recover program going on at the same time that you are running a non- selective gill net fishery that will take both steelhead and coho! Since coho and steelhead are pretty much the same size, the nets gets them all.

Historically 50% of the Cowlitz native steelhead returned from mid-November thru-February. Accordingly, this just also happens to be the peak return timing for Cowlitz coho. WDFW made the harvest decision to forego any possible chance for the recovery of the early run Cowlitz steelhead for the sake of continuing the Columbia River coho gill net fishery. That's the reason why WDFW drummed up the "questionable genetics" results that were used to justify the elimination of the early run Cowlitz steelhead program.

For well over 30 years the WDFW used numerous mixed stocks of steelhead from all over the state as their brood stocks. Since the dams blocked all natural production, there was nothing but these mixed hatchery stocks to continue the Cowlitz runs for 30 years!

All run timings were mixed with all stocks, and no stocks were allowed to spawn in there natural habitat to maintain there true genetics. But amazingly somehow when the genetic tests were being secretly performed, WDFW somehow found that the genetics of the "late" returning Cowlitz Steelhead (late March-May) were still in tack! Also equally amazingly was that WDFW had no previous genetic proof to support the fact that what they had supposedly claimed to have found were actually the genetics from the original late winter Cowlitz steelhead stock!

Shortly after the genetic report was published, the key person who wrote and published it died, so the real story may never be truly known. The fact is, if gill nets were really selective, we would still be enjoying an early run of Cowlitz River winter steelhead. If you think that you can prove otherwise. . . go for it!

So much for those so-called "scientific reports"!!

Cowlitzfisherman

Gillnets are selective for size. It doesn't get any more selective than that.

You are confusing management issues with selectivity. They are not one in the same. You are barking up the wrong tree.

Who's the one that's confused???

Selective by size. . . right! Selective by species. . . Hell no!

If gill netting is so damn selective, why then are all those sturgeon and steelhead being caught in the gill netters "incidental catch" every year.

Hummmm. . . . .maybe that's why the gill netters are allowed their own special "incidental catch" when sport fishers are not! It sure sounds like a very selective fishing method when you have to have an "incidental catch" attached to justify its use!

Selective . . . who's kidding who???


Cowlitzfisherman

Selectivity at the species level is a management issue, not a gillnet issue. Only management allows the hows/whens/wheres of a fishery. The gillnet just selects for what you design it to select for, or are *allowed* to select for.

Got back and re-read my original statements. I still read AuntyM's signature and still laugh at the Oxymoron.

Parker,

Most of the time I think that you are a pretty smart young guy! But sometimes older guys have seen just a little bit more BS then the younger ones have! I also know that you have a degree in biology and that is good.

Biology will not justify, or will it support the miss-use of the current gill net fishery! I know that you do not support the "gill netters", but what you say may mislead some others to think otherwise.

The Gill Nets are designed to "catch" a verity of marketable fish! The misnomer of a selective net fishery was intently designed to make the showing that just single species of fish are caught.. As you know, in reality, they are designed to catch the "best market sized" fish and not just one single specie.

The "management" can (and does) decide the when/ and the where's, but Gill Netting is still a stupid way to justify the management of any fishery or species. True, gill netting is the most effective way used to "harvest" any and all fish. But the undisputed problem is that GILL NETS do (and history backs this up) catches anything that can't go through the size of the net mess!

So tell me again, just how effective and selective gill nets are!

Certainly, we are having a "generation gap" on this conversation!

99% of time you are right on when it comes to the biology of issues of fish. But when it comes to management issues, techniques, and gill nets. . . we disagree!

Cowlitzfisherman

Thanks for the semantics lesson . Nets are , indeed, selective just as my 300 Winchester Magnum can be. The gill nets just selectively catch too many fish and selectively catch alot of wild ones. During the Columbia River spring Chinook gill net season last year I think 29,000 wild steelhead were estimated to have been caught. Things selectively changed this season.

When commeercial fishermen point out that their nets are the most selective type of fishery they usually also point out that they feed the world, too.

Grandpa

It looks like you have been around long enough to read between the lines about those "selective" nets! There will always be the guys that for some unknown reason will defend the use of gill netting, be it for their selectivity, feeding the world, or for the welfare of the economy.

They (the net defenders) can say and write whatever they choose to, but most members of this board fully understand the history of gill nets and there indiscriminate taking of unintended species. They truly are effective for harvesting fish that travel in large schools just as shot guns are effective for shooting birds in flocks! In fact, that is a perfect comparison; when all the birds are the same species (like in quail hunting) and you shoot into the covey, and you may kill as many as 6 or 7 quail with a single shot! But what happens when other birds are mixed in the same flock?

Just like gill nets, you get them all because the BB (just like a net) doesn't know the difference!

"Selective". . . board members can figure that out one own their own!

Cowlitzfisherman

Ok, this is getting out of hand. A lot of you missed the simple oxymoron I was pointing out.

I do not support gill nets. I wasn't bring my personal feelings or beliefs in to this conversation. Never have, never will.

You all just ASSUMED I'm some sort of pro gill-net, pro commercial fishery freak. You know what happens when you ASS-U-ME?

I was just pointing out the oxymoron of a signature. I still think it's funny. It's still an oxymoron.

By the way CFM, I do NOT have a degree in biology.

However, I DO have U of W degree in..... Fisheries. <GASP>


I'm ending this conversation, but if you still want to persist at this, feel free to stop by my office here at the UW School of Aquatic & Fishery Sciences and I'll loan you my selectivity and fishery techniques book.

Parker,

That's exactly why I said ". . .I know that you do not support the "gill netters", but what you say may mislead some others to think otherwise."

I was just debating an issue! Please do not take any offence from what I was saying about the gill netters.

Cowlitzfiisherman