Discussion in 'Steelhead' started by Kaiserman, Sep 29, 2012.
...or let it go if legal and you choose to do so.
If you love wild steelhead. Why let it go? Wack it and give it to your neighbor!
I know the answer is they trap them anyways on most rivers but still!!!
Kill it. Every time. Hatchery fish can always be replaced. Kill it. It's the conservative approach.
Woah. I didn't realize this part. Now that I look back on my pictures of wild vs. hatchery, you're totally right. I had always noticed that towards the end of the fin, even the most intact hatchery dorsals were bent, but I didn't look at the base of the fin. Do you happen to know if this holds true for the Quinalt or Queets hatchery fish that don't have the adipose clipped?
I have not looked at either the Quinault or Queets fish but it has held on every run of hatchery fish that I have looked at here in Puget Sound.
While it is possible that a hatchery fish would not have that "rounded" insert it is extremely unlikely that a wild fish would have such an insert.
Sounds like the start of some great lyrics for the church of wild steelhead choir...maybe a gangsta rap tune?
Not much of a singer or a churchgoer. I do however like to make decisions based on science when possible. Science is clear on this one. If it were a church it'd be faith based by definition, so your little shot at me falls flat on it's face again.
There isn't a good reason to release a hatchery fish. There are plenty of misguided/bad reasons.
Charles is right. If you can positivley ID it--Kill it. Every time.
You guys crack me up. You act as if you invented this argument and the science behind your cause is as sound as Newtons Laws. Well, I hate to shatter your day, but there are plenty of us who have been involved with the save the wild fish for a good long time -- and many of the current arguments being made have fallen flat. I have discussed my specific involvement in this subject in prior threads, in case you care to look. And, as someone who's profession is in the sciences, has seen plenty of contradicting data on this subject over the years, and chooses not to simply discount the significant, poorly understood variables that will no doubt effect how this will play out, rest assured it is not as sound as Newtons Laws.
Utopia would be to end all hatcheries and have rivers flush with wild stock...most, I think, agree. But to simply say stop hatcheries, kill off all remaining remnants of non-wild fish, perhaps stop fishing altogether, and assume the stocks will rebuild is naive at best. Remember, the same poorly understood variables (migratory routes, high seas catch, cyclic weather events, habitat) that have contributed to the lack of success attaining the goal are still there...and worse yet, dynamic.
I'm in favor of selecting several of our rivers as pilot projects, that have the best returning number of wild stock, and stopping hatchery production, stopping tribal netting, and closing the river to fishing for a long enough period of time to see if stocks will rebuild.
Since politics and people (some could argue still poorly understood) are yet another pair of variables in this discussion, finding some compromise a majority can get behind is likely to get more traction than the "stop all hatcheries and kill off all hatchery fish" approach.
You've put a lot of words in my mouth and thoughts in my head in that strawman argument. The discussion to this point has been about whether the fish in the photo was hatchery or wild and killing adult hatchery fish encountered while fishing. Since doing so won't result in any less smolts (determined by hatchery management) it doesn't effect any hatchery run or any of the poorly understood variables you cite above. What it does is simply reduce a hatchery fish from spawning in the wild. On this subject the science is pretty darn clear. If you think differently then you've been reading studies that I haven't or have a very different understanding of the same data and discussion. You seem pretty passionate about the subject I'd love to see any study that shows hatchery wild spawning interaction to be good for wild fish.
Stay on target. Don't put words in my mouth or thoughts in my head. I write pretty darn well, so I know if you read what I write with an open mind you can understand. You don't have to agree and you can argue against any point I make. Best of luck.
So you understand too, making the statement that I attend the "church of wild fish" is a perjorative. This is an issue of science. To say my position is faith based in any way is speculative and insulting. I take your motives as being just what you say they are, I'd appreciate the same respect.
"....finding some compromise a majority can get behind is likely to get more traction than the "stop all hatcheries and kill off all hatchery fish" approach."
...or, stick to your dogmatic position, continue to alienate yourselves from the rest of the fishing community who, whether you like it or not, will have a say in the way steelhead fisheries will be managed.
The reference to the church choir and church of wild steelhead was in response to some prior related threads on this subject where you and a few others went apoplectic about my position on releasing hatchery fish if legal and one chooses to do so. You all reached a crescendo reminiscent of a church choir repeating a doctrine.
Uh... as the original poster of this thread, all I was mentioning was that I could not positively identify this fish. I figured it was a hatchery fish, but did not wish to retain it and take the risk of getting in trouble. Also that I've been seeing more fish clipped like this over the past couple of years - more than over the past 10 yrs or so.
I keep ALL hatchery fish, and give them away. Didn't think this would start a debate...but then I remember where I was at.
I don't know if you are posting in response to my post there or not. I assume not as the quote you use is assuredly not mine. Then again the second paragragh seems to be in response but it's unclear. Could you clarify? I really dislike having words be attributed to me that aren't mine.
I rarely chime in to these pissing matches, but what the hell are you talking about? All Charles was saying is to remove the hatchery fish from any system when you can. This is a fish ID thread. Instead of hi-jacking a thread and putting words on another's key board, next time start a thread of your own.
I'll help you. In addition to properly identifying the fish, he also said "kill it every time". I responded "...or let it go if legal and you choose to do so". No hi-jack, just responding to a statement with and opposing statement.
Fixed it for ya!
Logic's there for those not blinded by doctrine. If you choose to ignore the fact that a significant population of the fishing community does not share the "wild steelhead only" approach, I suspect you will continue to be disappointed in how the fisheries are managed. I suggested a path... what do you suggest?
You say name calling, I say comparison.
I suggest that all adult hatchery fish be killed. There is no downside to this approach. It keeps at least that fish from spawning in the wild. This, as I stated previously has no effect on future generations of hatchery fish. It can and likely does increase the ability of the wild fish to reproduce naturally.
In certain areas such as the Puget sound we need to really rethink whether we even want hatcheries for steelhead. Given their dismal return on investment, dismal returns (possible exception Skykomish) and potential adverse impacts to wild stocks it is the conservative approach. Coastal Hatchery fish and CR hatchery fish seem to have a sigifigant social benefit so while I think we need to look at those programs too there are at least a few marks on the positive side of the ledger.
You say comparison but your "church of wild fish" is clearly and insult hurled to dismiss others science based beliefs. It is in a word....projection. Is that clear enough?
could you please post links to this "contradicting data" on the benefits of hatchery steelhead on wild stocks?