Washington Fly Fishing Forum banner

Well are they or not...

3K views 66 replies 22 participants last post by  FinLuver 
#1 ·
"We need to maintain healthy and abundant wild populations not only for their own sake, but to be a supply of fish for hatchery production and to keep hatchery programs cost effective," Bakke said.

Guess "they' are not as bad for our streams as has been previously purported...after all, this quote comes from the "expert".
 
#32 ·
See, now I usually stay out of threads like this, but for fuck's sake, man. If you have a difference of opinion with someone, fine. But to take a man's quote out of context, and then bash him on a forum he isn't likely to read is chickenshit. Have you ever met the guy? Had a conversation with him? He is a guy who has been fighting for wild fish since way before it was cool. By all means disagree with someone, but whatever you type, frame it in such a way that you'd read it to their face.

And as far as the snarky "card carrying" comment, I am one. I am also a river steward for that organization. I have given up countless hours of fishing, time with my family, and gas to participate in scientific data collection, youth and public outreach and education, policy comment periods, and training. A TON of my free time, man. NFS was the first group that was able to put me into a position to actually change my home water for the better. I'm not pointing this out because I am special. I am pointing this out because I am a tiny part of the effort. There are many many people doing this type of thing. From NFS and other groups. I don't know you. Maybe you do the same type of thing. If so, you should know that there are better ways to expend your efforts than spouting divisive, uninformed bullshit from behind a keyboard. That type of stuff is killing us. It doesn't help the fish at all.

If you want to criticize something, criticize me. On the phone. To my face. Over a beer. On the water. I don't profess to know it all. I am willing to change my mind in the face of strong evidence. Show it to me if you have it. But for the sake of the fish, please stop with the hate shit. It's not helping.

My name is Jason Small, and I am a river steward for the Native Fish Society.
http://www.nativefishsociety.org/
Jason, you belong to an organization that champions the removal of hatchery fish from a system or from any contact with "wild" fish (in this case the Sandy); yet one of your top leaders make a comment (the quote I posted) in support hatcheries (almost to a point of managing fish, as was done in the early days before "Brood Stock Programs" and their poor returns; which may be their goal.) Don't you find it a least bit queer? And it was made in the same news report.
In addition, when it comes to the facts presented by the NFS' Sandy lawsuit - some of the claims were just downright preposterous.
It reminds me of another organization's press release regarding the McKenzie River Lawsuit, to the affect..."we are not out to shut down the hatchery, we just want no hatchery salmon to be planted as they are detrimental to the "wild" salmon". Well, they raise the salmon at the hatchery...without the fish returns for harvest, there will be little to no tag sales, which in turn WILL shut down the hatchery...not to mention less conservation minded people out on the river to protect it. A positive side effect (for the groups proposing such restrictions) is a reduced number of gear chuckers and their trash; and a particular group of guys and gals have room to fly fish.
Reading organizations' press releases and newsletters is like reading an Amato published book...lets just say the art of proofreading (and previous facts/statements checking) is dead. Not to mention, the groups are political in nature and when they speak, it's as if "Obama himself were speaking".
I champion for "wild" fish and practice C&R; and would gladly join such organizations as yours, if it weren't for certain claims being made (that seem to be proposed over a "4 martini lunch"). I look at numbers - "before and after" - and the numbers don't support the claims being made by conservation groups. Reading such nonsense, could also mean why the numbers in some of these groups are dwindling.
I'm a guy who likes to "SEE" the results...if the claims don't support the results of a report or I can ask 3 or more questions that are not answered in the report; then I consider such report to be incomplete... there are those that will take a snippet and piggy-back to other report snippets and call it a "best available science" report, present it to a judge, to get their way.
I don't think hatcheries are the savior, they were a mitigation tool for lost numbers due to man's progress.
There is one aspect of raising hatchery fish, that has got my attention; and that is the idea of "triploid steelhead". But even that idea has me asking questions - such as, what happens if those "overly roided" fish don't want to migrate and flush out to sea; how detrimental will that be on the system and the "wild" fish? If they don't have the maturing sexual organs, will they even have the urge to return to the "rearing river systems"? What stresses on a system's food supply will occur when these "screw sex, lets eat!!" pigs return? Will they eat bugs or fry/smolts on their return? What happens to them when the season is over, do they stay and drain the food resources or do they run out to sea again? What are the stresses on the ocean's food supply if these fish are stronger and more ravenous than there "wild" counter parts?
I hope to see some solid answers.
Jason...keep up the good work, but don't afraid to question; even if it's an organization you belong to.
 
#42 ·
In addition, when it comes to the facts presented by the NFS' Sandy lawsuit - some of the claims were just downright preposterous.
you continually write that the native fish society has it's facts wrong without stating which facts are wrong. please be specific about which claims are "downright preposterous".

without being specific your "arguments" will not be taken seriously.
 
#33 ·
FinLuver, I'm in the middle of cooking dinner, but stole a glance at this thread. Thanks for taking the time to write a well thought out post. I agree with you regarding blind faith to any organization or dogma. I will reply when I have a few minutes. Again, thanks, man.
 
#34 ·
NFS didn't say no hatchery fish. They said the amount of hatchery plants was a problem, as science has clearly shown. The judge agreed, and told the two groups to work it out.

The hatchery system has failed for 100 years. Shouldn't the pressure be on them to prove they have a system that works with wild fish rather than vise versa?

Let me put it a different way;
If there were no hatcheries yesterday do you think it would be wise to start at the level of plants we see today?

All NFS is saying is if we don't slow down now we won't have a chance in the future. I agree that hatcheries aren't the source of the problem, but they aren't helping us recover either.

Hatchery proponents want to see a huge rebound to call it a success. At this point stopping the decline is a win in my book.
 
#35 ·
FinLuver,

You went off track by attacking Bakke rather than an interest or a position. That technique will win you knuckle draggers as followers, and the average IQ in this forum doesn't fall for that bait. If you have an interest or a position that you want to argue and win some support for, then argue it with facts. Objective data wins more followers hereabouts.

You posted, ". . . if the claims don't support the results of a report or I can ask 3 or more questions that are not answered in the report; then I consider such report to be incomplete..." Don't be so narrow minded. If the report wasn't prepared with answering your questions in mind doesn't make it incomplete. It could just mean that your questions and the report are not a good fit, even when the report addresses exactly what it intended to.

Then you said, ". . . there are those that will take a snippet and piggy-back to other report snippets and call it a "best available science" report, . . ." Don't you see, that is exactly what you did by quoting a snippet from Bakke and concluded that it fully encompassed his opinion on what is a broad and complex subject.

Sg
 
#36 ·
"NFS didn't say no hatchery fish. They said the amount of hatchery plants was a problem, as science has clearly shown. The judge agreed, and told the two groups to work it out. "

Now explain this...

If hatchery plants are reduced or removed entirely; then WHY are the numbers not rebounding or exceeding in their previous numbers? Instead, they are staying steady or declining.

The number of hatchery plants is not the problem, as the data (fish counts) supports this assertion; and for which the science has NOT clearly shown....it should have not been brought before a judge or even considered.

Don't know how much more "best available science" one needs to come to a conclusion...hatchery fish are not THE problem!
 
#37 ·
SALMO G...didn't "attack" Bakke; I merely posted a statement that contradicts himself and the organization which he is a major part of. People take his word as gospel; so much so, that they've convinced a judge with false premise that "it must be true".

Is ODFW do ALL that they could be? No...never said they were.

But, I'll be glad when a "complete" study on the issue is done.

A modern day base line needs to be established, and not some "what is was before 1900 nonsense". In order to get a true reflection of the numbers of wild fish, the following needs to happen - no more hatchery plants what-so-ever; no more commercial fishing of salmon/steelhead both domestic and international; no more sport angling, either C&R or harvest; no more restoration projects or dam breachings - this needs to run for a minimum of 12 years and be studied extensively, without exception.

That's the only way we will ever know the current status of our fish.

Time, Effort, and Money needs to be put forth to this effort; not on lawsuits and "incomplete" studies...IMO.
 
#43 ·
But, I'll be glad when a "complete" study on the issue is done.

A modern day base line needs to be established, and not some "what is was before 1900 nonsense". In order to get a true reflection of the numbers of wild fish, the following needs to happen - no more hatchery plants what-so-ever; no more commercial fishing of salmon/steelhead both domestic and international; no more sport angling, either C&R or harvest; no more restoration projects or dam breachings - this needs to run for a minimum of 12 years and be studied extensively, without exception.

That's the only way we will ever know the current status of our fish.

Time, Effort, and Money needs to be put forth to this effort; not on lawsuits and "incomplete" studies...IMO.
i see how this works. as long as there is no "perfect" study we can do nothing because we don't "know" absolutely everything.

so you say we need a study that is 100% impossible to obtain to make any decisions about hatcheries.

this is another play from the playbook of the "know nothing" anti-science camp.

unfortunately for finluver, this isn't ifish and we're not gonna let his confusion become contagious.

finluver, be specific as asked or STFU.
 
#38 ·
And to refresh everyones' memories...

Here's the quote I posted...

""We need to maintain healthy and abundant wild populations not only for their own sake, but to be a supply of fish for hatchery production and to keep hatchery programs cost effective," Bakke said.

Now let's break down this statement.

We need to maintain healthy and abundant wild populations not only for their own sake...

I Agree

but to be a supply of fish for hatchery production

I have a problem with this in light of the fact that conservation groups, including NFS, have been lamenting hatcheries and hatchery fish for many years...That "they are detrimental to wild fish". As I mentioned before, this was the practice for many years. In Oregon, the Alsea and Skamania stocks come to mind; return rates were a poor 1%. So, certain groups championed for "brood stock" and the returns increased to 5%. IMO..."To maintain healthy and abundant wild populations for the sake of hatchery production" has already been tried - the returns didn't justify the money spent. (which leads to the last part of the quote)

and to keep hatchery programs cost effective

"Cost effective" and "fish per dollars spent" seems to be the "new" buzzwords among the groups these days. As if, "hurting fish" doesn't get some attention, then surely "waste of money" will...after all, money is what we are all about. The Sandy River is a prime example where all three sections of this quote are in play.

This one little quote "contradicts" itself; not to mention some other comments made in that news report (and others).
 
#39 ·
I think rivers where hatchery fish have been eliminated have, at worst, shown a slower decline in the number of wild fish.

Nobody said hatchery fish were THE problem. Lots of people realize they are A problem. At this point we should work to lessen ANY problem. Not spending money to create a problem should seem obvious.

Agree that we should stop all the questionable practices(taking your baited statement) and get our shit together before the wild fish are gone. Not practical. So we try and make small changes in the most endangered places.
 
#40 ·
Hatcheries fail because of how we raise fish in them and how we release the fish (the magnitude of the releases and the resulting predation and competition). A wild brood stock "fertilization program" (I've never heard of one either) would work if we limited our input to fertilizing eggs and putting them in the river, a fake redd or an egg box.

If we let the rivers determine when the fry come up and when the parr decide to smolt we'd eliminate alot of problems!!! Our main problem is assuming that money wasted maintaining hatcheries will help fish when the obvious solution is creating wild fish...and I agree with Finluver in most, if not all of his points. But there is another way and I'm confident Mr. Bakke would agree.
 
#46 ·
Klickrolf,

I've read of the "egg box" approach and agree natural rearing and selection would be an alternative, but the things I've read and the pictures I've seen have shown a poor result, especially when the box gets wiped out by high water events,
 
#49 ·
The quote is only a problem if you're of the slippery slope mentality exhibited on cryFish. The pudding brains on cryFish think the NFS targeting specific hatcheries means they'll target all of them and, as far as I can tell, that's never been a stated as a goal. Bakke's comment can still be in line with the mission of the NFS since it seems they're willing to accept that hatcheries are going to continue to be part of the approach, just not on every single river.
 
#50 ·
Well, to take a page out of Kerry and WW's book, FinLuver, you are now on my ignore list.

I can't fucking handle your special brand of bullshit.

Good day, sir.

J
Another one chooses to take his toys and go pout...I'm sure FinLuver is devastated :rolleyes:. Seems some simply cannot handle those that don't sing in harmony with the choir.
 
#51 ·
After reading through this paper, my take is that the use of hatcheries (for experiments) to both improve wild fish stocks and satiate the demand for harvesting fish is a compromise. To Rob's point, the results we're seeing from the current paradigm of "the more we put in the more we get back" is proving to have only benefits for harvesting fish, while the situation for wild fish takes a diverging and depressing path.

The studies being done in controlled environments to benefit wild fish that are funded by harvest-based activities seems to make sense, especially if the research leads us to the answers for reducing wild/hatchery spawning interactions - one of the most telling bits of information taken from the paper.

"If reproductively sterile hatchery fish can be stocked in selective watersheds to support recreational angling harvest then a major concern of hatchery - wild interactions will be resolved."

If it is true that our watersheds are under carrying capacity, and that the demand for harvest isn't going away, then making consensus decisions about impacting opportunity would be easier to reach - the common ground being in the where and how those fish are harvested while protecting wild populations. I'd rather see the research being done with my tax dollars focused on developing solutions like eliminating spawning interactions between wild and hatchery fish while maintaining harvest opportunities for those who wish to. Like dams, not all hatcheries are bad, just the ones that have a negative impact on wild, native fish.
Finding some compromise is always a good start (good post Derek). Everyone I know wants rivers teeming with wild fish just as much as they want to fish. The genie is out of the bottle and hatcheries are not going away (IMO). Finding ways forward with these facts in mind will likely result in more fish and less pissing matches...just saying.
 
#52 ·
Everyone should simmer the fuck down before the thread gets the padlock.

I will give my unsolicited spin. It goes like this. The native brood stock and hatchery program has possible value in the rivers we have already destroyed. Perhaps there a recovery can be seen from a hatchery recreation perspective. IMHO, and nothing more than that, any river with wild fish at all, even the most precariously holding on, should be left alone. No hatchery plant influence. Anyone want to tell me to STFU? Anyone want to tell me I can't have an opinion?
 
#55 ·
And your point would be "what?" there Ed?

By your "opinion"... there should NO Hatchery Fish...PERIOD

All rivers have "wild" fish... (but you already knew that).
My point annonymous screen name user that tends to agitate the masses, if we've already killed the river, for sure, planting hatchery smolts can do no more harm. If evidence of spawning wild pairs remain, hatchery fish should NOT, for any reason, be introduced. Clear enough? I thought it was pretty easy to read before.

I don't know how they do things in Oregon, but here in Washington humans trying to help by introducing hatchery fish seems to be doing more harm than good. Based on my opinion, gut, feeling...no claim to any empirical evidence or statistics backing what I believe. Just one man putting his opinion all side his name.

I'm a moderator. I do not have the luxury of an ignore list like so many pride yourselves on and brag about. I do not hide behind a screen name. Here I am, right out in the open sharing my own two cents.

Now, how about a civil discourse?
 
#56 ·
Well Ed, there are more "wild" fish in a river system than the fish we throw in from hatcheries; and it's that short sightedness that is the root of the problem.

And it's an "easy read" if all things are not considered.

Fair Enough??
 
#59 ·
FinLuver said:
Well Ed, there are more "wild" fish in a river system than the fish we throw in from hatcheries; and it's that short sightedness that is the root of the problem.

And it's an "easy read" if all things are not considered.

Fair Enough??​
-----------------​
JS said: Obviously you never look at the Bonneville dam counts.​
----------------------​
And the tea in China means what?​
 
#60 ·
FinLuver said:
Well Ed, there are more "wild" fish in a river system than the fish we throw in from hatcheries; and it's that short sightedness that is the root of the problem.​
And it's an "easy read" if all things are not considered.​
Fair Enough??​
-----------------​
JS said: Obviously you never look at the Bonneville dam counts.​
----------------------​
And the tea in China means what?​
What the hell? Now you're quoting yourself? At least your nonsense threads and posts are morbidly entertaining:) Kind of like watching a train wreck. I just can't look away.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Jason Rolfe
#63 ·
I think FL may have been trying to say that hatchery fish are "wild" fish too. You know like the Quinault tribe would count fish. I think that is what he is saying. It's hard to really be sure with the way he writes.

Am I correct FL?

Go Sox,
cds
 
#64 ·
I think FL may have been trying to say that hatchery fish are "wild" fish too. You know like the Quinault tribe would count fish. I think that is what he is saying. It's hard to really be sure with the way he writes.

Am I correct FL?

Go Sox,
cds
Charles, rather than quote finluver without knowing what he really means, let's allow him to clarify. I certainly know how little I appreciate him quoting me and claiming to know what I mean or speak on my behalf as if we agree. I will patiently wait for finluver to sort this out using his own words, not mine.
 
#65 ·
Yah, I know. That's why I asked if I was correct. It's so hard to tell what he means since his language skills are so poor.

I have in-laws that are "off the boat" They struggle with english at times as it is their second language. Truthfully their language skills are much better than Finluvers even after they ingest a large quantity of Johnny Walker.

Go Sox,
cds
 
#66 ·
FinLuver said:
FinLuver said:
Well Ed, there are more "wild" fish in a river system than the fish we throw in from hatcheries; and it's that short sightedness that is the root of the problem.​
And it's an "easy read" if all things are not considered.​
Fair Enough??​
-----------------​
JS said: Obviously you never look at the Bonneville dam counts.​
----------------------​
And the tea in China means what?​
Triploidjunkie said:
What the hell? Now you're quoting yourself? At least your nonsense threads and posts are morbidly entertaining:) Kind of like watching a train wreck. I just can't look away.

Pat Lat said:
Winning...
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top