Hatchery and Wild Movie

Discussion in 'Fly Fishing Forum' started by Chris Bellows, Jan 31, 2014.

  1. Link to Video

    I'm only 12 minutes in but figured people might want to watch a pro-hatchery take on broodstock hatcheries.

    I had to stop when they touted the Nez Perce study, which did not include fish in the study that produced zero offspring and did not note the higher % of jacks when computing hatchery production.
  2. Watching right now. Thanks.
  3. It will be "interesting" to see the replies, as some folks here are anti-hatchery-brats.

    That said, if it's done right, I think it works. May not be perfect, but it's better than nothing at all.
  4. Excellent production. A reminder to keep an open mind. In spite of myself.
  5. finished it... what can unite guides, tribes, and commercial fishermen? hatchery welfare programs.

    the fact that they talked up the nez perce study shows how biased they are. and as someone involved in the snider creek deal, there were plenty of clallam county (locals) residents opposed to the program. makes a good soundbite to ignore the locals who showed up at both meetings in forks to express their opposition to that program.

    and i couldn't help notice that the owners of redd zone were proponents of using their products to supplement the rivers. big surprise there.

    lots of industry people, almost zero non-tribal scientists. i wonder why (not really)?
  6. Anyone lose a red and white fly in a Chinook jaw this year. If so you might be able to spot it at 23:31. Wish I knew enough to have an opinion on the movie.
  7. Exactly. I sent this to several friends (pro and anti hatchery) who are much better informed than I, and am waiting to hear reviews from both camps.
  8. Just spend 20 minutes writing a detailed response and receive an error message when I try to post it. This has happen to me a number of times; very frustrating.

    Too lazy to attempt it again; instead I encourage interest folks look below the surface of the studies and try to make informed decisions.

    constructeur likes this.
  9. I will start off by saying I am not a scientist and am coming at this from a guy who just loves to fish. I love to fly fish, gear fish, I fish for salmon,trout, bottom fish. If it swims I probably have the equipment to go after it. I do no that hatcheries and opportunity to fish for salmon and steelhead seem to go hand in hand. If we didn't have hatcheries on the Skagit, Skykomish and Snoqualmie would we be able to fish? Probably not. Without Hatcheries we most certainly not have a chinook fishery any time in Puget Sound.

    I have fished the forks rivers for 20 years taking 1 trip in January and 1 in February each year. I can tell you that the Sol Duc has 5 times the wild fish in January than the Bogey or Calawa. This does not include the Snider fish I have caught. I know it's non scientific so take it with a grain of Salt.

    I have not killed a wild Steelhead in 15 years since I saw the light. I just want opportunity to fish.

    The one question I have always wanted to know from one of our biologists on this site is. Is there more damage done by catch and release mortality or having the presence of hatchery fish. I have never seen the two compared.
  10. I never watch a video longer than about three minutes. So I guess that I won't watch this one either.
  11. Patrick -
    There is no black or white answer to your question of which is more damaging to the wild resource - catch and release mortality or the presence of hatchery fish. As often is the case in the fish world the answer depends on the particulars of the situation. Key factors include the over health of the wild population, degree of interaction between hatchery and wild fish and the portion of the wild fish population handled in CnR fishery.

    Looking at current conditions I would say that on OP rivers the presence of hatchery fish is a larger issue than CnR mortality. Conversely on my home water the Skagit basin the impacts from CnR mortalities when we had those spring season likely exceeded the adverse impacts from the hatchery program (especially as it is currently constructed).

  12. More than a little disappointing to see this kind of concerted effort toward promoting these programs as being good for the wild steelhead. Another short sighted stab at generating fish for dollars, with no sense of the longer term consequences. And this also illuminates the weakness of our management system- that promotes the notion that if you get enough people bullying and threatening the fisheries managers and WDFW Commissioners, you can get what you want. Even if it is the worst possible choice for the fish.
    Chris Johnson and Derek Young like this.
  13. I think these guys make an interesting point that hatcheries can be used as a temporary crutch to bolster wild stocks. That idea comes with it's old set of hang ups and problems, but who's to say that those wild fish, if given a decent chance, wouldn't have repopulated those streams on their own. Those supplementation programs just seem to be mimicking the action of the salmon themselves.

    In any case, I do really appreciate that all these guys seem to support the idea that wild fish are superior, and don't forward this misguided idea that the two are interchangable. I also appreciate that they agree that habitat improvements and other issues that threaten salmon need to be addressed in addition. It's a shame both hatchery and anti hatchery groups can't first focus on attacking those issues instead of bickering over hatchery programs.
    Don Freeman and doublespey like this.
  15. My bad I ment to respond to your quote, After suffering thru half the video I fealt the video was more propaganda than fact. One thing that fired me up were the guides that supported the snider creek program and stated how successful the program was were way off base. During the early eighties there were native fish in the upper sol duc in december and january, but they were heavily impacted by overharvest both tribal and local and the reason there were increased numbers was not because of snider creek program, but they implemented no kill fishery in the late eighty's.
    Chris Johnson likes this.
  16. I thought that in the 80's you could still kill 5 steelhead a year? Up until 2 years ago you could still harvest 1 wild steelhead in Before the now Feb 15 the date. Also tribal has always netted throughout the whole steelhead year.
  17. in the 80's you could kill 30 a year. i don't know when the sol duc became selective fishing above the hatchery, but that might be what he was talking about.

    i also wanted to mention that if you look at the data, prior to the snider program the sol duc had far more early wild fish than the bogachiel/calawah. i also wonder if the fact that the winter regs on the sol duc that close such a long stretch of river to all angling (upstream of snider creek) has an impact on the health of the steelhead run there... in that there is true sanctuary for upstream spawners both above and below the national park boundary. you cannot say the same for most other rivers although access via trail does limit the high bank and boat pressure on the lower stretches.
  18. wild fish groups do involve themselves in habitat issues too. people and groups can multitask and be able to work on two or more issues at a time.

    hard to imagine sportfishing groups standing side by side with lower columbia gillnetters, but we now see it on video.
  19. Pretty interesting how on that creek in idaho the hatchery fish were actually stronger fish than the wild ones.

    This feels like a political election where neither side is "wrong" and can simply cherry pick their statistics to prove their points.

    Also, this is my fly:

  20. you might want to dig into the study.

    they did not count adults that did not produce offspring and did not account for a high number of jack returns when computing fitness.

Share This Page