Well are they or not...

Discussion in 'Steelhead' started by FinLuver, Mar 5, 2014.

  1. Jmills81 The Dude Abides

    Posts: 1,894
    Spokane, WA
    Ratings: +138 / 0
    Yeah for Trolling dickheads....

    All i know is that a wild fish is a wild fish. I want to make sure there's more of them.
  2. FinLuver Active Member

    Posts: 427
    Mid-Willamette Valley
    Ratings: +97 / 0
    Print the source of the quote or you are just attacking another person, anonomously, and taking their words out of context.

    At least if you put it in context you will just be attacking a person anonomously.

    BTW- I know little of the CR/ Oregon hatchery v. wild fish disagreements that this thread comes from. I do know that the personal way you (finluver) have attacked people, both on this board and off undermines whatever message you have.

    Go Sox,
    cds

    What...You are not a card carrying member of the Native Fish Society?
    If you were, you would have the source!

    And you say I'm attacking someone's character.

    Are you the "pot" or the "kettle"?
  3. Jason Rolfe Wanderer

    Posts: 1,178
    the beach
    Ratings: +373 / 0
    Well, to take a page out of Kerry and WW's book, FinLuver, you are now on my ignore list.

    I can't fucking handle your special brand of bullshit.

    Good day, sir.

    J
  4. Charles Sullivan dreaming through the come down

    Posts: 2,289
    bellingham wa
    Ratings: +544 / 0
    I am a person, Charles Sullivan, who read your post. In your post you took a quote out of context. I am asking that for the sake of honesty you put it in context. In that way I can make an informed decision, or even comment somewhat intelligently on your itentionally provocative post.

    If you don't do this, your post is clearly not helping to truly make anyone think, as you aren't providing the neccesary information to do so. Please provide the context.


    Go Sox,
    cds
  5. orangeradish Bobo approved

    Posts: 2,461
    Capital City
    Ratings: +484 / 0
    See, now I usually stay out of threads like this, but for fuck's sake, man. If you have a difference of opinion with someone, fine. But to take a man's quote out of context, and then bash him on a forum he isn't likely to read is chickenshit. Have you ever met the guy? Had a conversation with him? He is a guy who has been fighting for wild fish since way before it was cool. By all means disagree with someone, but whatever you type, frame it in such a way that you'd read it to their face.

    And as far as the snarky "card carrying" comment, I am one. I am also a river steward for that organization. I have given up countless hours of fishing, time with my family, and gas to participate in scientific data collection, youth and public outreach and education, policy comment periods, and training. A TON of my free time, man. NFS was the first group that was able to put me into a position to actually change my home water for the better. I'm not pointing this out because I am special. I am pointing this out because I am a tiny part of the effort. There are many many people doing this type of thing. From NFS and other groups. I don't know you. Maybe you do the same type of thing. If so, you should know that there are better ways to expend your efforts than spouting divisive, uninformed bullshit from behind a keyboard. That type of stuff is killing us. It doesn't help the fish at all.

    If you want to criticize something, criticize me. On the phone. To my face. Over a beer. On the water. I don't profess to know it all. I am willing to change my mind in the face of strong evidence. Show it to me if you have it. But for the sake of the fish, please stop with the hate shit. It's not helping.

    My name is Jason Small, and I am a river steward for the Native Fish Society.
    smc, John Hicks, Ed Call and 5 others like this.
  6. Chris DeLeone Active Member

    Posts: 526
    Monroe, WA
    Ratings: +90 / 0
    Jason - put up the whole quote/release and please put in context. Thanks
  7. FinLuver Active Member

    Posts: 427
    Mid-Willamette Valley
    Ratings: +97 / 0
    Well, to take a page out of Kerry and WW's book, FinLuver, you are now on my ignore list.

    I can't fucking handle your special brand of bullshit.

    Good day, sir.

    J

    Thank God...there are miracles!!
  8. FinLuver Active Member

    Posts: 427
    Mid-Willamette Valley
    Ratings: +97 / 0
    I am a person, Charles Sullivan, who read your post. In your post you took a quote out of context. I am asking that for the sake of honesty you put it in context. In that way I can make an informed decision, or even comment somewhat intelligently on your itentionally provocative post.

    If you don't do this, your post is clearly not helping to truly make anyone think, as you aren't providing the neccesary information to do so. Please provide the context.


    Go Sox,
    cds

    All one needs to do is read some other works from Mr. Bakke and the Native Fish Society to have ALL THE CONTEXT they would need to know where I am coming from for posting such a direct quote.
  9. Jason Rolfe Wanderer

    Posts: 1,178
    the beach
    Ratings: +373 / 0

    Edit: I'm guessing you were referring to ORad.
  10. Chris DeLeone Active Member

    Posts: 526
    Monroe, WA
    Ratings: +90 / 0
    Yes, Jason Small - but you can put up the full quote/release as well, I would appreciate it. This is like listening to my 10 year old and 7 year old girls go at it over something. Fin - cant put up the full quote, everybody else (Jmills, CS, and OR ) say its out of context - but doesn't show how thats true.
    Thanks
  11. Chris DeLeone Active Member

    Posts: 526
    Monroe, WA
    Ratings: +90 / 0
  12. orangeradish Bobo approved

    Posts: 2,461
    Capital City
    Ratings: +484 / 0
    Chris, you got the jump on me. That's it.

    I don't feel comfortable speaking for Bill. My main issue was with the approach. Disagreeing vs. disrespecting. If I only served to drag the dialog down even further for you, sorry. Not my intent.
  13. FinLuver Active Member

    Posts: 427
    Mid-Willamette Valley
    Ratings: +97 / 0
    See, now I usually stay out of threads like this, but for fuck's sake, man. If you have a difference of opinion with someone, fine. But to take a man's quote out of context, and then bash him on a forum he isn't likely to read is chickenshit. Have you ever met the guy? Had a conversation with him? He is a guy who has been fighting for wild fish since way before it was cool. By all means disagree with someone, but whatever you type, frame it in such a way that you'd read it to their face.

    And as far as the snarky "card carrying" comment, I am one. I am also a river steward for that organization. I have given up countless hours of fishing, time with my family, and gas to participate in scientific data collection, youth and public outreach and education, policy comment periods, and training. A TON of my free time, man. NFS was the first group that was able to put me into a position to actually change my home water for the better. I'm not pointing this out because I am special. I am pointing this out because I am a tiny part of the effort. There are many many people doing this type of thing. From NFS and other groups. I don't know you. Maybe you do the same type of thing. If so, you should know that there are better ways to expend your efforts than spouting divisive, uninformed bullshit from behind a keyboard. That type of stuff is killing us. It doesn't help the fish at all.

    If you want to criticize something, criticize me. On the phone. To my face. Over a beer. On the water. I don't profess to know it all. I am willing to change my mind in the face of strong evidence. Show it to me if you have it. But for the sake of the fish, please stop with the hate shit. It's not helping.

    My name is Jason Small, and I am a river steward for the Native Fish Society.
    http://www.nativefishsociety.org/
    Jason, you belong to an organization that champions the removal of hatchery fish from a system or from any contact with "wild" fish (in this case the Sandy); yet one of your top leaders make a comment (the quote I posted) in support hatcheries (almost to a point of managing fish, as was done in the early days before "Brood Stock Programs" and their poor returns; which may be their goal.) Don't you find it a least bit queer? And it was made in the same news report.
    In addition, when it comes to the facts presented by the NFS' Sandy lawsuit - some of the claims were just downright preposterous.
    It reminds me of another organization's press release regarding the McKenzie River Lawsuit, to the affect..."we are not out to shut down the hatchery, we just want no hatchery salmon to be planted as they are detrimental to the "wild" salmon". Well, they raise the salmon at the hatchery...without the fish returns for harvest, there will be little to no tag sales, which in turn WILL shut down the hatchery...not to mention less conservation minded people out on the river to protect it. A positive side effect (for the groups proposing such restrictions) is a reduced number of gear chuckers and their trash; and a particular group of guys and gals have room to fly fish.
    Reading organizations' press releases and newsletters is like reading an Amato published book...lets just say the art of proofreading (and previous facts/statements checking) is dead. Not to mention, the groups are political in nature and when they speak, it's as if "Obama himself were speaking".
    I champion for "wild" fish and practice C&R; and would gladly join such organizations as yours, if it weren't for certain claims being made (that seem to be proposed over a "4 martini lunch"). I look at numbers - "before and after" - and the numbers don't support the claims being made by conservation groups. Reading such nonsense, could also mean why the numbers in some of these groups are dwindling.
    I'm a guy who likes to "SEE" the results...if the claims don't support the results of a report or I can ask 3 or more questions that are not answered in the report; then I consider such report to be incomplete... there are those that will take a snippet and piggy-back to other report snippets and call it a "best available science" report, present it to a judge, to get their way.
    I don't think hatcheries are the savior, they were a mitigation tool for lost numbers due to man's progress.
    There is one aspect of raising hatchery fish, that has got my attention; and that is the idea of "triploid steelhead". But even that idea has me asking questions - such as, what happens if those "overly roided" fish don't want to migrate and flush out to sea; how detrimental will that be on the system and the "wild" fish? If they don't have the maturing sexual organs, will they even have the urge to return to the "rearing river systems"? What stresses on a system's food supply will occur when these "screw sex, lets eat!!" pigs return? Will they eat bugs or fry/smolts on their return? What happens to them when the season is over, do they stay and drain the food resources or do they run out to sea again? What are the stresses on the ocean's food supply if these fish are stronger and more ravenous than there "wild" counter parts?
    I hope to see some solid answers.
    Jason...keep up the good work, but don't afraid to question; even if it's an organization you belong to.
  14. orangeradish Bobo approved

    Posts: 2,461
    Capital City
    Ratings: +484 / 0
    FinLuver, I'm in the middle of cooking dinner, but stole a glance at this thread. Thanks for taking the time to write a well thought out post. I agree with you regarding blind faith to any organization or dogma. I will reply when I have a few minutes. Again, thanks, man.
    John Hicks likes this.
  15. Yard Sale Active Member

    Posts: 348
    The Hood
    Ratings: +142 / 0
    NFS didn't say no hatchery fish. They said the amount of hatchery plants was a problem, as science has clearly shown. The judge agreed, and told the two groups to work it out.

    The hatchery system has failed for 100 years. Shouldn't the pressure be on them to prove they have a system that works with wild fish rather than vise versa?

    Let me put it a different way;
    If there were no hatcheries yesterday do you think it would be wise to start at the level of plants we see today?

    All NFS is saying is if we don't slow down now we won't have a chance in the future. I agree that hatcheries aren't the source of the problem, but they aren't helping us recover either.

    Hatchery proponents want to see a huge rebound to call it a success. At this point stopping the decline is a win in my book.
  16. Salmo_g Active Member

    Posts: 7,484
    Your City ,State
    Ratings: +1,621 / 0
    FinLuver,

    You went off track by attacking Bakke rather than an interest or a position. That technique will win you knuckle draggers as followers, and the average IQ in this forum doesn't fall for that bait. If you have an interest or a position that you want to argue and win some support for, then argue it with facts. Objective data wins more followers hereabouts.

    You posted, ". . . if the claims don't support the results of a report or I can ask 3 or more questions that are not answered in the report; then I consider such report to be incomplete..." Don't be so narrow minded. If the report wasn't prepared with answering your questions in mind doesn't make it incomplete. It could just mean that your questions and the report are not a good fit, even when the report addresses exactly what it intended to.

    Then you said, ". . . there are those that will take a snippet and piggy-back to other report snippets and call it a "best available science" report, . . ." Don't you see, that is exactly what you did by quoting a snippet from Bakke and concluded that it fully encompassed his opinion on what is a broad and complex subject.

    Sg
  17. FinLuver Active Member

    Posts: 427
    Mid-Willamette Valley
    Ratings: +97 / 0
    "NFS didn't say no hatchery fish. They said the amount of hatchery plants was a problem, as science has clearly shown. The judge agreed, and told the two groups to work it out. "

    Now explain this...

    If hatchery plants are reduced or removed entirely; then WHY are the numbers not rebounding or exceeding in their previous numbers? Instead, they are staying steady or declining.

    The number of hatchery plants is not the problem, as the data (fish counts) supports this assertion; and for which the science has NOT clearly shown....it should have not been brought before a judge or even considered.

    Don't know how much more "best available science" one needs to come to a conclusion...hatchery fish are not THE problem!
  18. FinLuver Active Member

    Posts: 427
    Mid-Willamette Valley
    Ratings: +97 / 0
    SALMO G...didn't "attack" Bakke; I merely posted a statement that contradicts himself and the organization which he is a major part of. People take his word as gospel; so much so, that they've convinced a judge with false premise that "it must be true".

    Is ODFW do ALL that they could be? No...never said they were.

    But, I'll be glad when a "complete" study on the issue is done.

    A modern day base line needs to be established, and not some "what is was before 1900 nonsense". In order to get a true reflection of the numbers of wild fish, the following needs to happen - no more hatchery plants what-so-ever; no more commercial fishing of salmon/steelhead both domestic and international; no more sport angling, either C&R or harvest; no more restoration projects or dam breachings - this needs to run for a minimum of 12 years and be studied extensively, without exception.

    That's the only way we will ever know the current status of our fish.

    Time, Effort, and Money needs to be put forth to this effort; not on lawsuits and "incomplete" studies...IMO.
  19. FinLuver Active Member

    Posts: 427
    Mid-Willamette Valley
    Ratings: +97 / 0
    And to refresh everyones' memories...

    Here's the quote I posted...

    ""We need to maintain healthy and abundant wild populations not only for their own sake, but to be a supply of fish for hatchery production and to keep hatchery programs cost effective," Bakke said.

    Now let's break down this statement.

    We need to maintain healthy and abundant wild populations not only for their own sake...

    I Agree

    but to be a supply of fish for hatchery production

    I have a problem with this in light of the fact that conservation groups, including NFS, have been lamenting hatcheries and hatchery fish for many years...That "they are detrimental to wild fish". As I mentioned before, this was the practice for many years. In Oregon, the Alsea and Skamania stocks come to mind; return rates were a poor 1%. So, certain groups championed for "brood stock" and the returns increased to 5%. IMO..."To maintain healthy and abundant wild populations for the sake of hatchery production" has already been tried - the returns didn't justify the money spent. (which leads to the last part of the quote)

    and to keep hatchery programs cost effective

    "Cost effective" and "fish per dollars spent" seems to be the "new" buzzwords among the groups these days. As if, "hurting fish" doesn't get some attention, then surely "waste of money" will...after all, money is what we are all about. The Sandy River is a prime example where all three sections of this quote are in play.

    This one little quote "contradicts" itself; not to mention some other comments made in that news report (and others).
  20. Yard Sale Active Member

    Posts: 348
    The Hood
    Ratings: +142 / 0
    I think rivers where hatchery fish have been eliminated have, at worst, shown a slower decline in the number of wild fish.

    Nobody said hatchery fish were THE problem. Lots of people realize they are A problem. At this point we should work to lessen ANY problem. Not spending money to create a problem should seem obvious.

    Agree that we should stop all the questionable practices(taking your baited statement) and get our shit together before the wild fish are gone. Not practical. So we try and make small changes in the most endangered places.