Groups sue to prod state action on protecting wild salmon

[Kaari White]

IMO- In my opinion

IMHO- In my humble opinion

[Steve Buckner]

I would have never guessed...Thanks!!!

Maybe I could introduce a new one, IMOA, which would mean, "In my old age"...

Skinny

[BOBLAWLESS]

This post seems to have taken a political twist of sorts, and that should be OK as long as the subject remains fly fishing related.
Liberal-Conservative people may be characterized by their willingness to change as CWUgirl stated. Skinny, though, in a more political sense of the words, equates Democrats with Liberals and Republicans with Conservatives. By and large he is also correct. But where does fly fishing come in to all this?
The environmental record of the Republicans is next to criminal. Check and see what the Bush people have done to wetlands, rivers, clean water, pollution standards, lumbering practices, mining regs. and on and on.
Democrats have not been ultra sanitary on these issues, but I feel proud, as a member of that great unwashed mass, that I am a Democrat.
And Matt, old buddy, no harm done.
blaw. :professor

[Kaari White]

As someone who just completed a degree in political science a mere two days ago(still one more quarter for graduation requirements), it is my duty to be.....an independent. A libertarian in name, mixed ticket voter... Not a big fan of either major party and third parties, while they do serve a purpose, lack any real power and never will have power. Geez, I get a degree and I come out less certain than when I came in. :beathead

[o mykiss]

CWUGirl, you sound like you know very little about this organization. I know a few people there, and they are not liberal zealots or radicals. Many of them are anglers; the difference between them and many other anglers is that they care more about the resource than preserving their angling opportunities, and they're willing to tailor their angling habits to avoid undue pressure on wild stocks that are under threat. This is a very science-based organization. Given how difficult it is for any non-profit organization to raise funds to keep operating in the type of economic environment we are in, I sincerely doubt WT would have taken this step if the science wasn't pretty compelling. The fact that this kind of legal initiative stirs so much ill will (I heard one of the guys at Kaufmann's in Bellevue griping about it on Saturday) just goes to show that what many fly fishers (who like to hold themselves up as friends of the environment and wild fish) really care about is being able to fish - even if it's just over a bunch of hatchery zombies.

[Jim Wallace]

"Sacrifice"....Now there's a word that seems to scare some people, although I do not know why. I take it to mean giving something up for something else that is more worthy, such as: "Sacrificing what you are now for what you can become," or "Sacrificing the lower rung (on a ladder) so that you can step up to a higher one," or like bunting (baseball) so your teammate can score. I see it as growth, not loss. Why are people so afraid of change?
This is why I can almost always periodically raise my rates (in the lawncare business) without fear of losing my customers, because to a homeowner, as regards his lawn care service, "The devil you know is better than the devil you don't know." This I have found to be true.
I have experienced this same fear of the unknown myself in having to sacrifice the tried and true (gear/bait fishing) in order to learn flyfishing. Do I go catch fish with my spin gear, or do I sacrifice a sure thing and go out and flouder around with my limited flyfishing experience and get skunked? (But at least learn a thing or two). We must embrace sacrifice as one of our best friends if we are to progress.
I must now sacrifice the rest of my lunch break and go back to mowing lawns as the weather has me under the gun. MPN (my plug nickle, to coin one) Jimbo

[BOBLAWLESS]

CWUGirl-- Sounds like you might have learned something.
Skinny-- Nice thoughts.
All Others-- Kisses.:thumb

[Kaari White]

Well, I disagree. They are radical and they are definitely extremists. Liberal? Well, I think they're in their own little world as opposed to having a real ideologically based game plan. ((and no guys, it was not the world renound fly fishing guru who made the comments on WT))

I don't think its a matter of what fly fishermen care about more or less. Yeah, there are people who would rather catch fish, regardless of their native or hatchery heritage. But, I doubt its the majority. BUT... of course fishermen are going to be concerned with their ability to fish!

There should be NO shame from wanting to save the wild salmon in order to fish for them. Salmon of course have intrinsic value, but they also taste really good and are fun to fish for.

My problem is the exclusion of fishing from their agenda and that they advocate animal rights initiatives. Being as focused as they are and as far away from the middle ground as they are, they make their biggest allies- fishermen- shy away from their cause. Who is that helping? The salmon? Nope, dollars that could go to WT are going to other causes.

They'll never see a dollar from me- even if their science is correct... I just can't give to an animal rights organization.

[o mykiss]

CWUGirl, you're digging yourself an even bigger hole with your continued display of ignorance. WT is not an animal rights organization. It is a conservation organization. By glorifying organizations like DU and TU while denigrating WT (and the Audobon Society), you seem to imply that any conservation organization whose mission is not to preserve animals for the purpose of catching or killing them is some wacko fringe group. I can understand your perspective knowing where you hail from (I grew up east of the mountains), but I'm sorry - you're blowing smoke on this one. Fortunately, most educated people know the difference between a conservation organization and a pseudo-religious movement like PETA, which is what most of us think of when we hear the term "animal rights organization."

WT does not alienate anglers. They may alienate people (like you?) who care about efforts to protect fish only if they don't impinge on their desire to fish, but lots of anglers and lots of businesses in the flyfishing industry support this organization. I love to fish more than anything else in life besides my family, and I gladly give to this organization.

And I agree: there is no shame in wanting to save wild salmonids in order to be able to fish for them. I'll take that kind of conservation mentality over indifference any day. But don't go knocking an organization dedicated to saving wild fish just because angling isn't expressly on their agenda.

By the way, are you trying to tag WT with the animal rights label because of the purported connection with I-713 (referred to in one of your posts above)? Because I'm pretty sure that WT executive director Kurt Beardslee's name was inappropriately associated with that initiative. You might want to do a little research before you go spreading this kind of misinformation.

[Kaari White]

Inappropiately associated?? Well, the Save I-713 website seems to believe that WT endorses them!! Hmmm, maybe they should ask to be removed???? http://www.save713.org/pages/7/index.htm

I didn't hail from East of the mountains if you must know, I'm a recent transplant! Notice in my repsonses, I don't make personal remarks. Can't you make your points without them? I guess your case is that weak.

WT is not a wacko group, never said they were, but they do have a radical agenda which is outside the realm of other conservation groups which are also trying to save the fish. With the existance of other less radical and more practical groups out there, there is no reason to support an angler unfriendly group.

An animal rights group is one that does the bidding of the animal without regard or in protest to human uses, practices, etc. That is what WT is doing, so by definition, they are an animal rights group!

[KerryS]

A posted copied from the WSC forum from a thread on the same topic. Interesting read.

http://www.flyfishingforum.com/flyta...threadid=10344

Todd -
I think it is obvious to all us fisherman that large fish eat small fish. Since steelhead generally are the largest of the smolts then if the goal is to have no wild smolts eaten by hatchery steelhead there is only one way to accomplish that -PLANTED NO HATCHERY FISH!

However if the objective is to minimize the impacts to some acceptable (again we are talking willingness to accept some impact or risk) then there are likely modifications that would be helpful. The place to start is to examine the information available about hatchery steelhead predation. To determine the mangnitude of the problem (amount of predation) one needs to know the rate at which steelhead predate on wild chinook fry and the lenght of time they have access to the fry (exposure). Then the question can be asked can either the rate or exposure be reduced?

Unfortunately there are few studies that have looked at the predation rates on a large scale. One of the better studies is form the Salmon River in Idaho where in 1992 they looked at the stomachs of 6,762 hatchery steelhead and found 10 chinook. They found that "most steelhead smolts did not start feeding extensively until about a week after release". If this predation rate is typically then it is a simple to estimate the total predation = (predation rate) times (the number of smolts) times (the number of days in the river).

Additional background information.
Fish planted in late April to mid-May leave the system quckly.

Fish that remain in the system more than a few weeks (residuals)have twice or more predation rates.

The percentage of the smolts that residualize increases if the smolts are planted too small, too large, too early or too late. Target size should be about 6 fish/#

In large rivers and/high flows smolts move downstream about 20 miles a day - slower at low flows and in smaller rivers (as little as a mile or two a day).

Hatchery smolts are hatchery fish that have been fed pellets all their lives and need to learn on to feed on natural foods (shortly after release twigs, fir needles etc are common food items.

Predators generally eat the weak, sick and injuried. All fry consumed by smolts or other fish are not destined to become all fish.

The vulunerability of the fry to predation is in part a function of their habtiat - those streams with complex habitats and channels (natural streams) have lower exposure than those that have been altered by man.

Lets look at a hyporthical example - a large North Puget Sound stream that recieves a plant 500,000 smolts fifty miles above the mouth of the river. "Best Hatchery Practice" might be planting the smolts at 6/# in early May with direct releases from the hatchery into main stem areas. On the North Sound rivers we can expect that the spring run-off will have started by May thus helping to speed the smolts to sea. In that example we would expect most of the smolts to leave the system (low % of residuals) in just a days. The high spring flows would further flush many of the potential of the residuals from the system). Using half of the 20 miles/day would expect them to be out of the system in 5 days.

500,000 smolts time 0.00148 fry/smolt (from the Idaho study above) times 5 days yields a predation mortality of 3,700 fry.

Typical fry to adult survival for chinook would be well less than 1%. In North Puget Sound rivers where chum and pink fry substantially outnumber chinook they would likely outnumber chinook as preferred items (In May they would be smaller and less mobile than chinook - my own sampling at that time of year found the chum but no chinook in 150 stomachs).

If all the fry eaten were chinook (I feel that only a small % would be) then we are looking at impacts equal to less than 37 adult chinook. The actual details in each system would vary depending a variety of factors. In this hypothical example it would be for each of us to decide whether those impacts are too great for the benefits (steelhead fishing). Washington Trout clearly thinks it is -do you?

Tight lines
Smalma

[Old Man]

I used to know it all---but now that I'm older I seem to forget it all.

I agree with all of you about fish eating each other. But you are just talking about hatchery fish eating salmon. What about what the dollies eat. They love to eat other fish and you can bet that they not only eat salmon but the steelhead smolts as well. I caught a dolly out of a stream in Eastern Washington that was 16" long and when I cleaned it it had a 6" rainbow in it's stomach. This was many years ago And it was the Mad river.So you can't just fault hatchery fish.

Jim