Hatchery brats: To bonk, or not to bonk?

Discussion in 'Fly Fishing Forum' started by Mingo, Nov 27, 2005.

  1. Porter

    Porter Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2003
    Messages:
    6,780
    Likes Received:
    714
    Location:
    Kenmore, WA, USA.
    Too many valid points on both sides to validate killing just to kill. Everyone wants immediate answers...and this one is just going to have to take time. TomB ...while I respect everything you add to this board..... I still have a hard time figuring why selective environmental genes (I don't know if that was your words or someone else's) can not be adapted by long living (generational) hatchery SH ...they must at some point become Wild. (Once again TomB I respect your opinion/knowledge...so don't take this wrong)...This has to me almost ...took a does a god really exist thing?
     
  2. James Mello

    James Mello Inventor of the "closed eye conjecture"

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2003
    Messages:
    2,808
    Media:
    8
    Likes Received:
    87
    Location:
    Tacoma
    Well, to the letter of the law, you need to at least give it to someone specifically for eating. It's not legal to just dump 'em on the side of the river. Personally, I think it's too hard to catch 'em to drop 'em on the bank of a river, and DAMN, they taste good ;)

    Now with that said, my wife takes care of hungry bears, cougars, wolverines, and other meat eating critters that would *LOVE* a meal of steelhead. If yous gots and don't want 'em, lemme know

    !
     
  3. Roper

    Roper Idiot Savant

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2004
    Messages:
    4,569
    Media:
    85
    Likes Received:
    1,188
    Location:
    Glenraven Ranch
    Gordon, I'm simply sharing my personal opinion on the taking of wildlife, be it fish or birds or mammals. I don't think I'm going to have any impact on wild versus hatchery levels. But I, in all good conscience, can't kill something I won't make personal use of. My comment has nothing to do with fish "science".

    Peace...
     
  4. Porter

    Porter Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2003
    Messages:
    6,780
    Likes Received:
    714
    Location:
    Kenmore, WA, USA.
    Mr. Mello..(nice artwork by the way) ..you have to many answers.
     
  5. gordon

    gordon New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2004
    Messages:
    98
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    .
    Porter, just read the literature man. It is crystal clear. You may "think" there are good arguments on each side of the board, and that maybe true for a relatively uneducated fishing board, but that is not true in the scientific community. Take a class from Tom Quinn at UW, or perhaps Jack Stanford at U. Montant, or ask Pete Bisson at the USFS. In fact, read tom quinns new book. The answers are there, just because you can't comprehend the literature, doesn't mean the arguments are balanced.
     
  6. gordon

    gordon New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2004
    Messages:
    98
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    .
    Ropter I respect you alot and your choice is your own, so I gotcha. What I do believe is that every person's actions have an influence. For every fish we remove, there is one less to compete with wild fish.
     
  7. James Mello

    James Mello Inventor of the "closed eye conjecture"

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2003
    Messages:
    2,808
    Media:
    8
    Likes Received:
    87
    Location:
    Tacoma
    My wife tells me that all the time too. :) Usually they aren't about answers, but more like "excuses" :rolleyes: ... One of her favorite quotes is from Evil Dead II :)

    "Are all men of the future loudmouth braggards?"

    "Just me baby, just me"

    -- Cheers
    -- James
     
  8. James Mello

    James Mello Inventor of the "closed eye conjecture"

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2003
    Messages:
    2,808
    Media:
    8
    Likes Received:
    87
    Location:
    Tacoma
    Which of Tom Quinns books are you speaking of? I just read one of them from the Tacoma Library, and it was pretty darn good :) If you have a title, I'd love to check it out...

    Also, are there either research papers or lecture materials available from Jack Stanford? If so please provide references... This is the kind of stuff we need to have! :)
     
  9. Porter

    Porter Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2003
    Messages:
    6,780
    Likes Received:
    714
    Location:
    Kenmore, WA, USA.
    And once the so called scientific world said the world was flat......May I rest my case.
     
  10. greyghost

    greyghost Member

    Joined:
    Apr 30, 2004
    Messages:
    507
    Media:
    126
    Likes Received:
    2
    Location:
    Coastal Rivers, OR
    Gordon,
    I don't agree with your approach when entering this discussion. To jump in and bash somebody and put blame a single person for managing fish onto the ES list is a bit harsh and certainly untrue. Internet or not, let's try to keep some class and invoke a good conversation not just bash people.
    That being said, I do completely agree with your other points. I do believe that we are at a point where our managers should not fold to political pressure, and should protect wild steelhead. Hell, the Hoh missed escapement by almost 1000 fish last year yet there will be retention again this year. HUH? Wait a minute, why do we try to determine escapement numbers??? People are fishing these rivers now from all over the region specifically because they can still kill wild steelhead. How long can that possibly sustain itself?
    I also agree that you should be able to kill and dump hatchery fish. I don't fish for food, although I certainly keep and eat my share of hatchery fish. However, I often travel long distances to fish and don't always like to drag a fish around all day(for miles), transport a cooler and keep ice during a trip. Therefore, I release a lot of fish that I would otherwise like to remove from the watershed.
    I love steelhead and have much respect for them, but if I could release a hatchery fish into the woods legally so native fish could reproduce more efficiently, I would do it with a smile.

    Pete
     
  11. TomB

    TomB Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2004
    Messages:
    1,637
    Likes Received:
    74
    Location:
    seattle,wa
    Porter-
    1. hatchery steelhead, if allowed to reproduce in the wild over generations, will assume wild characteristics. A hatchery strain that is maintained through artificial propagation no matter how many generations will not: different selective pressures.
    2.even when the scientific community thought the world was flat, they probably knew alot more about the world or at least individuals knew alot more about about the parts of the world that they were studying than the general public who had not studied those disciplines. Science doesn't know all the answers. It doesn't claim to. But i think it is reasonable to say that fisheries scientists who have published well recieved peer-reviewed literature probably know a little more than the general public or dare I say even fishermen.
    -Tom
     
  12. Porter

    Porter Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2003
    Messages:
    6,780
    Likes Received:
    714
    Location:
    Kenmore, WA, USA.
    Mingo...Where the hell are you? This is your damn shinaagin....pipe up bud and then let the vultures surround you and the educational question you...can't help with the horndogs. By the way if you plan on hitting the Sky this weekend let me know?
     
  13. Smalma

    Smalma Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2004
    Messages:
    3,108
    Likes Received:
    1,138
    Location:
    Marysville, Washington
    Wow - must of touched a nerve!!

    Gordon is correct of course. I spend a career as a fisheries manager for the State. In that time I did not produce any peer reviewed articles. However that has little to do with whether one was a successful manager or not. My job was to manage nor to produce articles. Like Gordon I generally worked many more hours than just 40/wk. The time and effort it would take to produce peer reviewed articles is a fair chunk of time that would have been at the expense of the primary focus of the management job - I opted to attempt to that job as well as I could. Gordon and others are free to form their own opinions on whether that was successful or not.

    The fact that I was manager does not mean that I did not stay current with the science or did not apply "science" to management situations. I would suspect most of the State's adminstators would disagree with Gordon's statement that in doing the job myprimary interest was maintaining the Status Quo.

    Prior to my career as a fisheries manager, during my career, and after I was/am an angler that has long had concerns about the conservation of our salmonid resource. I opted to work within the system to attempt to change past management practices. In this discussion whether I was successful or not is not really relevant. This site is populated by many thinking anglers and what is relevant is does the information that I may present contribute to your thought/opinion forming process. Each of you are certainly free to accept or reject anything that I may provide - frankly I would be disappointed if anyone accepted it all. However if my comments cause some of you pause and critically think about some of these issue I consider my time well spend.

    Tight lines
    Curt
     
  14. gordon

    gordon New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2004
    Messages:
    98
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    .
    James:

    Toms book is "the behavior and ecology of pacific salmon"

    If you really want to examine the hatchery vs. wild issue I would strongly suggest looking at the Native Fish Society webpage. The group is relatively anti-hatchery, but that said, all the literature paints the same pictures, which is that hatchery fish are bad for wild fish and are incapable of surviving in the wild without constant planting.

    Now the latest Hatchery Scientific Review Group headed by Long Live the Kings is a pretty good idea, but so far it is not supported by science. It is a theory. So if you would like a pro-hatchery perpsective it might be worthwhile checking that out online. Just google the HSRG and you will find their webpage.

    For Jack Stanford, go to the Flathead Biological Station (University of Montana) home page and you can sift through his literature, which is mostly ecosystem based but if you have heard him talk, his views on hatcheries and fish managers (or crop sharers) is clear. Hatcheries are bad for wild fish.

    Another guy to look for is Mart Gross, University of Toronto, his link is:
    www.zoo.utoronto.ca/mgross/

    He has great literature on atlantic and coho salmon. Some of his research finds that the success of hatchery spawned fish is reduced 50% just by humans choosing their mates.

    The real issue with hatcheries is not whether they are bad for wild fish, because they are, but is whether we as a society want fish to harvest or want native runs (most of which we can't harvest in their current state). Curt did bring this point up well, although I disagree with his perspective on what society wants, I think WDFW makes decisions on what they want, and commercial fishers want, not sportsmen or society.

    Mark Chilcote has done good work, look for : Relationship between natural productivity and the frequency of wild fish in mixed spawing poulations of wild and hatchery steelhead. Mark W. Chilcote. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Science 60: 1057-1067 (2003). THis is in the aforementioned journal and is a great piece of work.

    The bottom line: Regression relationship suggests that a spawning population that consists of equal numbers of hatchery and wild fish would produce 63% less recruits per spawner than one comprised entirely of wild fish.

    ANother good one is: THe influence of hatchery cohoh salmon on the productivity of wild coho populatoins in Oregon coastal basins. Thomas Nickelson. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 60: 1050-1056 (2003).

    The bottom line: To aid recovery of wild salmon hatchery operations miuch change to reduce interactions between wild and hatchery fish. The productivy of wild populations can be reduced by the prsence of large numbers of hatchery smolts in lower rivers and estuaries that attract predators- so reduce the number of smolts you release.

    I mention these two because Curt says it is only about adults, which is a load of crap. The hatchery vs. wild thing is carried out across the entire freshwater and marine life cycle. We are beginning to learn that the ocean has a carrying capacity, and that near shore areas like puget sound and estuaries have really limited carrying capacities. They can only produce so many smolts and if you chock them full of hatchery smolts the survival of widl fish is reduced.

    Now, some will argue you can alter the timing of hatchery fish so they don't compete with wild ones, but htat is impossible. Wild fish survive because of diversity, consequently different species are entering the ocean all across the year, leaving no time whe nyou can dump hatchery smolts into the river or ocean withouth them competiting.

    I don't know all the literature that Bill Bakke has for the Native Fish Society, but it is hte most comprehensive online bibiolograph of hatchery vs. wild interactions. The link is below and the literature will stun you if you are not aware of the hatchery impacts:

    http://www.nativefishsociety.org/conservation/biblio/wild_vs_hatchery/index.html


    Now I am going to ry and watch MNF, so leave me along:eek: JK of course.

    Most of hte relevant literature requires a membership to the scientific journal, so that may screw you. But please, read the literature on th NFS website, you will learn alot.

    The bottom line is this:
    If you produce hatchery fish in small enough numbers they can survive with some wild populations, but not all. The problem with this is that if yo only produce 10k coho smolts, which might be a sustainable level, you only get 100 adults back, which doesn't help the fishery much. So WDFW ignores the science and dumps millions in the rivers and oceans to appease commercial fishers.

    Hope this helps
     
  15. gordon

    gordon New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2004
    Messages:
    98
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    .

    GOod point, WDFW believes the world is flat, thanks for making my point. ptyd

    If you run a baseball team and they go 12-150, is that good management. How about running a football team into the ground. How about poorly running a business. Sure, you could say I had bad players, market didn't go my way, blah blah. Same logic applies to fish management, if the population dives on your watch, you take some of the blame, don't toss responsiblity off to someone else.
     
  16. Porter

    Porter Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2003
    Messages:
    6,780
    Likes Received:
    714
    Location:
    Kenmore, WA, USA.




    Your 1...explains or defines some thought. So if we left a river system alone (no fishing) for a period of ten or more years we could expect some SH that were hatchery at one time to be wild/native (their offspring0...and if so why can't that happen under in place conditions now? Please don't get me wrong...but hatchery fish that have run the gammet per say ....eventually become the claimed wild guy/gal....it's almost like having two caged lions who breed.....their young are set free and three generations later their young are doing fine in the Savannah fields hunting etc....but they are still considered inferieor.

    PS ..TomB ..people usually write what will sell. Then there is research books/paper.... what was then still applies today...acceptance/greed
    grades. I'm nopt trying to knockin....just realize we are part of Darwinism.
    We woul be better off with Wild but maybe we have come to that point where we have to manufacture wild.
     
  17. TomB

    TomB Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2004
    Messages:
    1,637
    Likes Received:
    74
    Location:
    seattle,wa
    I see what you are saying Porter, but my point is simply that in situations where wild fish already exist, we should help them, rather than giving up and hoping that hatchery fish left alone (meaning no hatcheries) will assume the slack after generations. While a few generations will do alot to increase the fitness of hatchery progeny in the wild, our true native fish have had THOUSANDS of generations, and will still be much more fit than any naturalized hatchery fish after even say 50 years.

    I like your lions example so I will use a similar one.

    Wolves vs. Dogs.

    same species...but......

    let dogs reproduce in the wild for say 10 generations, they will be better at surviving on their own, but they still won't be as good as a wolf.

    -Tom
     
  18. wboles3

    wboles3 Member

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2005
    Messages:
    104
    Media:
    1
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Mercer Island, WA.
    This I don't follow.
    Don't the parents(pack) of wolf pups and dog pups in the wild teach there offspring how to survive? Isn't it a learned behavior? I am to conclude that post spawned wild steelhead raise their offspring differently than hatchery?
     
  19. Porter

    Porter Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2003
    Messages:
    6,780
    Likes Received:
    714
    Location:
    Kenmore, WA, USA.
    Dammit Tom B....Excellent point with Wolves and Dogs...but didn't they come extinct in WA (Olympic Pennisula) and we re-introduced them (with a species not originated from here) and they are thriving as what wild wolves would do? Don' want to question your's or anybody else's knowledge/theory...because what a lot on this board would like to not think...there are some damn educated people here/and good insight/opinions etc......but there are some questions that are not easily answered and time as not allowed them to be answered. With due respect all that have commented.
     
  20. gordon

    gordon New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2004
    Messages:
    98
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    .
    Uh, there ain't any wolves on the OP porter, used to be as you said, but not now.