Discussion in 'Fly Fishing Forum' started by troutpounder, May 5, 2012.
I can only assume that freestone doesn't know how to use a smoker..... or hes just crazy
Talk about the pot calling the kettle black. What I think riles this core group up is someone who does not simply follow the mainstream line of thought...such as what started this string by my asking why someone feels compelled to kill every hatchery fish caught.
The "purity" of the strain is a huge red herring. The important thing is that the fish are naturally reproducing. Only in a few rare situations does having hatchery fish spawn in the wild result in more naturally produced fish. Generally it results in less and in some cases just the presence of hatchery smolts results in fewer wild fish.
It is believed that hatchery fish create the majority of wild steelhead in the upper Columbia although I see no control in this experiment (river w/o a large hatchery influence) except maybe the Yakima. That's why I have read the 6000 steelhead on the Yakima thread with interest. I would like to know if there are hatchery steelhead plants there.
It appears that you have gotten the fight that you tried to get with Mr. Johnson at the beginning of this thread. I hope you actually digest the info. and science. If you do that homework, I have no idea how you can still think that hatchery fish work.
Ok. You again, stated you opinion. And you asked me some questions about my beliefs, but you still haven't given any reasoning at all.
There has been a lot of debate on the subject, in years past, but I don't think anyone with real credentials, any biologist or fisheries management person, can honestly say they believe not killing hatchery fish will have a positive result. They may believe that hatcheries are necessary or even beneficial, but not one of them thinks that hatchery propagation with native fish is a good thing. The only reason hatcheries are on our rivers is because of recreational, tribal, and sometimes commercial demand is higher than the wild tock numbers. hatcheries go hand in hand with "Maximun Sustained HArvest" notice that last word there. HARVEST. The fish is made to be harvested. Now, like others have said, stocker trout in lakes are a whole different ball game. With steelhead though, especially with the small genetic window hatcheries typically use, the hatchery run is very concentrated on most rivers, and its very unlikely that a fish will be caught twice, mabey thats an incorrect statement on some of the bigger rivers like the columbia and its tribs, but here on the peninsula the hatchery is usually 30 miles or less fromt he sea.
All to say, I got no problems with church, and I pursue wild steelhead with a passion to rival a pagan cult, so consider me a deacon. I'll definitely be paying my tithe with the next steelhead missing an adipos fin.
And the statements you and others make "the "purity" of the strain is a huge red herring" is gospel?...give me a break . River systems full of only genetically pure wild steelhead and zero emission, clean energy is my utopia too...please make sure to sign the register when you check back into reality.
Hey, it's fishin season.....shouldn't you guys be fishin?
To busy arguing on interwebs.
I bonked a stocker rainbow today, first one in a LONG time. I did it just for this thread(i swear it had nothing to do with how deep he was hooked), I shall report back later on how he tasted.
You don't get to determine my postion. My position is clear. It is a red herring. It is the straw man you are putting up to win an argument that you have started.
The issues with hatchery fish are many. Introgression isn't the big one or really on the radar. The reason is that hatchery fish spawning in the wild with each other or with wild fish have a very low successs rate. In winter populations it is essentially zero.
As far as you calling it the church of native fish or whatever the hell projective phrase it is you so famously coined. It is obviously an attempt at an insult as the train of thought that hatchery fish should die.This train of thought is easily backed up by science not faith. To make it a faith based decision is insulting to those of us who spend enough time and effort going over the science before formulating a position. You know that too, I'm quite sure. Don't try and insult me while simultaneously telling me you aren't. It's a wee bit condescending. You also lose credability. I'm not dumb.
We're all waiting for your scientific explanation as to why you should not whack every hatchery fish. It's easily done when your position is not "faith based".
Go Red Sox,
Speaking of bonking hatchery fish. The new up coming season on the Columbia from Brewster to Chief Jo Dam is a big plus in removing some of the over abundant triploid rainbows that have come out of Rufus Woods. They played hell on last years stealhead season. 10 fish limit only caution is if you hook a springer break it off don't land it. There is a small impact number on the springers.
"...my position is clear."... You're correct, your position is clearly nothing more than your opinion -- thanks for setting that record straight.
what started this really was when your question was answered you posted this...
you asked the question and then insulted those who gave you an answer. no one attacked your position of releasing fish because you don't like to eat them.
we can have an honest discussion of harvesting hatchery fish and the role hatchery fish should play in our anadramous fish management in the pacific northwest. we can actually have a discussion about that and have many times on this board.
what you seem to be implying in this thread is that the science about hatchery x wild interactions is unsettled and their is confusion within the scientific community. obviously i am a wild fish proponent and might have missed some of this unsettled science. if i have indeed overlooked a large body of scientific evidence that points to the benefits to wild fish of planting hatchery fish i would sure appreciate you posting some of it.
honestly, if you choose to release hatchery fish that is your right where legal i do not really care. i have at times when i am unprepared for dealing with a dead fish for the rest of my fishing day and cannot get it properly taken care of. i think many of us catch more fish than we can reasonably eat. i only like to eat fish within a day or two of harvesting it and choose not to freeze, can, or smoke any additional fish. but i also have no problem with those who choose to deal with hatchery fish in a different way and kill every last one they touch. i personally do not understand you on this issue. why does it bother you so much that people choose to remove as many hatchery fish as possible from the rivers and saltwater?
you seem to have very strong opinions about hatchery fish and harvest. what i have not seen on this thread is any attempt when asked to explain the rationale behind your opinions except your opinion that the science on hatchery fish is unsettled.
I would think that you would at some point get sick of being owned. For certain, if I didn't do it, Mr. Bellows did.
My position is based on the best available science. Your position is based on calling mine a faith based decision and giving no alternative position. Which generally means that you appear to have no position except to opppose mine. Pretty easily defended even if not credible.
Are you a troll? With 1600 posts or so I suspect you aren't. You likely have some experience or knowledge to share. I would like to hear your argument and have you back it up before you call me out as having a faith based argument.
Honestly, man up, and show your facts. I'm staight up calling you out here. Give an argument. Give a position. Science based, faith based, I don't care. Be a man and fight the fight you started. If you are correct or even can back up any reasonable argument I'll go back to watching NBA hoops. Best of luck.
Truthfully, I'm gonna watch some hoops and eat BBQ. I'll check back when it's convenient. Take your time and do some homework.
The Celtics played poorly and still won. That Rondo sue is a joy to watch. What a truly intelligent player!
Go Red Sox,
I didn't bother reading all of this but just wanted to point out my belief that you can't rely on the state to decide your fisheries management policy. We all need to be informed and mindful of the resource and participate without the influence of politics that permeates bureaucracy.
F.Y.I. The Entiat River does not receive hatchery steelhead smolt plants. However, I am not sure whether or not it can technically be considered a control.
First of all, ANY POSITION is an opinion.
but, since apparently you didn't get my question out of that last post.
What is the benefit of not killing a hatchery fish?
plain and simple, why shouldn't I kill them. Not being condescending, I really want to know, if there is some benefit to wild fish, or even to other anglers, I would gladly change my position.
I like to let my fish go as well.
I'll keep hatchery steelhead, hatchery kings (the rare times I can catch one), hatchery silvers, and wild silvers. Plus a couple of humpies when they're around.
Now and then I'll keep stocker trout from a lake if they're big enough to not be all bones. So far this spring I've kept one 5-fish limit of 13" rainbows and a few other 15" trout. I recently found a lake that seems to have a good perch population and if I can get a bunch of them that are big enough to be worthwhile, I'll keep 'em.
The opportunity for another angler to catch the fish is one benefit. Just to be clear, I'm not against harvesting hatchery fish anymore than I would be against harvesting wild (unclipped) fish if their is ample population of them to do so. But just to say I'm going to club it because it was raised in a hatchery is not something I support.
Freestoneagler will not come up with any evidence to support his position. I don’t believe he really has a position. I believe his intent is only to stir to pot for personal reasons. He takes a contradictory position to what may be perceived as the majority of board participant’s view and then paints those members with as broad a brush as he can to elicit as much response as possible. I don’t think there is any genuine concern for steelhead, hatchery or wild on his part. It is merely a game to set himself apart from the rest of the board and boost his self-esteem.
You only discount my position because it does not align with you and the choirs idealist position (this is eerily similar to other discussion topics involving a certain group of folks who have zero tolerance for varying points of view). My position is that hatchery fish, whose origin is hybridized wild fish, can co-exist with non-hatchery origin stocks and vice-versa...as they have been for a long time. The evidence is swimming in the water you wade in. Is it the ideal scenario?... no, of course not, but it is the reality we live in, whether one chooses to accept it or not.
I've read a crap pile of the studies and reports concerning the wild vs. hatchery debate and they are laced full of qualifier's such as; "the data suggests", "might", "could", "possibly", "would seem to indicate". How much is absolute truth, politically motivated, or best guess is unknown. I run FEA stress models as part of my job and we routinely find ourselves off course, despite what we thought to be solid empirical data...it's why we design redundant systems on aircraft.
If we go your route and close all supplemental stock productions and the species goes extinct, what will be your response to that? (please don't tell me it's G.W. Bush's fault).
As for my concern for fisheries, I've been actively involved in fishery enhancement projects dating back to 1986 and have listed them in prior threads. As I recall, some of the choir summarily dismissed those efforts because they did not align with the teaching's...and you know, I'm OK with that .