"Action: Portions of the Cascade and Stillaguamish rivers will be closed to fishing."
check the WDFW web site for areas that will close.
check the WDFW web site for areas that will close.
What makes you ask so many inane questions?Why "fly anglers"?
What makes them so special??
Go out and have a look around! 'nuff said!Why "fly anglers"?
What makes them so special??
On second thought--Deleted.For WW & JR...
If "fly fishers" are so special and conservation minded, then why do ALL the books written by those so called "steelhead saviors" have photos with a finger or stick crammed through the gills of a fish?
And why would they "target" wild fish while they hold up for the rains before they enter their natal rivers??
YEP...a pretty SPECIAL group of people!!
SgThe issue I have is the science that is being preached that is "skewed" to sway people to a "particular" point of view and then preached to the masses as gospel; and with some of the preachers (above said authors) spreading the word. There are young and impressionable minds out there; misinforming them is wrong.
What I really like (or dislike) about the science out there, is it contradicts itself and the inverse of the findings can be equally true and relevant. And often times, the scientific reports utilize data from a river that are miles away and totally different in its ecological diversity; therefore it MUST be "relevant".
I read a lot of science, write some too, actually, and I don't see these "skewed" reports you vaguely reference. Reports present conclusions. Interpreting them well and accurately conveying their meanings is a skill. Maybe your objection is the way some laymen try to portray study results, but I don't see conclusions that are contradictory, except in a special few cases where the layman in question is truly ignorant.
Just as you pointed out (regarding the printed materials), the "old" hatchery methods were outdated and bad. Here in Oregon, bringing a cross bred Washington fish to propagate ours rivers was wrong. But, I believe hatcheries have their place too. Take them away and your wild stocks will decrease even more; and your international fleet will be raping them with unregulated abandon.
Did you know that ODFW originally stocked Siletz summer steelhead in Willamette tributaries, but they didn't work? Then they stocked Skamania hatchery strain in the same tributaries, and those are the successful hatchery summer steelhead programs you have there now.
To say "hatcheries are bad on wild fish" is pure nonsense; in certain practices/circumstances that may be true. But, I would say the decline in fish stocks has more to do with management practices, harvest, and environmental issues than it does with hatchery-vs-wild issues.
That is generally true, but can you point out how hatcheries are good for wild fish populations?
To preach hatchery fish are somehow "inferior" is a fallacy. For the "dumb" fish to survive all the issues it must to make it back to spawn; and then to says its offspring are somehow "dumb" too is inaccurate science. Because if that's the case, one could make a case to ban artificial insemination, test tube babies and surrogacy (or better yet, anyone one welfare can not have kids) on the premise the these offspring would be "dumb" and somehow inferior. (Kinda sounds like the relevant data used in a scientific fishy report... doesn't it??)
Inferior is an appropriate word choice when referring to the success of most hatchery fish spawning and reproducing in the natural environment. Less successful is also appropriate and accurate. However, your remarks about artificial insemination and test tube babies is a strong indication that you don't understand science very well at all. And that is perhaps why your criticisms in this forum are garnering so much negative feedback.
When it comes to the "science", it all comes down to who's paying for it as to the results we get.
Sometimes that's true, and sometimes it isn't. Therefore attacking the sponsor of the scientific work is a less intelligent approach than attacking the merits, or lack thereof, of the scientific work produced.
Give me concrete facts to support the science and I'll support the cause 100%!! But you better have the science to support the inverse as well for public viewing.
The results of scientific work are not always concrete. If the result of work that has a 95% probability of being true isn't good enough for you, you may very well die before ever getting results that have a 100% probability of being true. When interpreting science, you have to make a decision on how much information is good enough to take or not take an action. Let's say that you're sick. I have this medicine. There's a 95% chance it will make you well. There is a 5% chance that it won't. And there's a 4% chance it will make you even more sick. And there's a 0.002% chance it will kill you. What do you decide?
Just check the thread on river closershttp://nativefishsociety.org/wp-con...al-populations-associated-with-hatcheries.pdf
http://nativefishsociety.org/wp-content/uploads/Chilcote-et-al-2011-h-w-reduced-recruitment.pdf
There's some readin for ya finluvr.
Your argument are specious at best. The reason people call hatchery fish inferior is (imo), they are not just artificially propagated but are raise in a controlled environment thus subverting the process of natural selection until they head to the ocean. Comparing that to artificial insemination is "apples and oranges".