Wenatchee River Steelhead article

Discussion in 'Steelhead' started by Jeff White, Apr 3, 2008.

  1. Jeff White Member

    Posts: 52
    East Wenatchee
    Ratings: +0 / 0
  2. HauntedByWaters Active Member

    Posts: 2,749
    Bellingham
    Ratings: +104 / 0
    Same old as far as natives are concerned....:(

    Don't you love how all these articles always bunch wild and hatchery fish together into one group thus ingorning the real issues? *grumble grumble*
  3. Bill Dodd Bill's in a time out.

    Posts: 950
    Ratings: +0 / 0
    Great info, thanks for posting..


    BD.
  4. Chris DeLeone Active Member

    Posts: 526
    Monroe, WA
    Ratings: +90 / 0
    I thought TU was against the state hatchery programs??

    Thanks for posting this, very interesting.
  5. SeaRun Fanatic Member

    Posts: 411
    Northwest, WA
    Ratings: +19 / 0
    A quote from the article referenced:

    "The steelhead population in the upper Columbia River region has been rising in recent years, according to a 2005 report by NOAA. The average from 1992 to 1996 was 7,800, with 2,200 of those wild. From 1997 to 2001, the average steelhead return counted at Priest Rapids was 12,900 total, with 1,040 wild."

    Does anyone besides me (and Jason!) think this is one of the most ignorant paragraphs they have ever read? And in an article purporting to be about "big plans to re-establish endangered species"! WTF!:confused: A 65% increase in hatchery fish returning and a 63% decrease in wild fish. Talk about not seeing the forest for the trees!:beathead:
  6. Citori Piscatorial Engineer

    Posts: 1,204
    Federal Way, WA
    Ratings: +118 / 0
    Makes perfect sense if you are managing for fish ending up in markets or cans...
  7. HauntedByWaters Active Member

    Posts: 2,749
    Bellingham
    Ratings: +104 / 0
    Your are right but unless someone starts educating the public, which is what the media's job is, the public won't be outraged until it is too late.

    This article was written in the good news vein of reporting. If you were to read it as the average person, you would feel warm inside and yet just looking at the numbers is appaling if you know the real issues. The issue is NOT fish numbers. The issue is that hatchery fish aren't sustainable and are dependent on human intervention which is bad for multitudes of reasons.....oops I should stop preaching to the choir....
  8. SeaRun Fanatic Member

    Posts: 411
    Northwest, WA
    Ratings: +19 / 0
    iagree
  9. Will Atlas Guest

    Posts: 0
    Ratings: +0 / 0
    the article makes no distinction between hatchery and wild fish biologically speaking. Any program designed to recovery wild fish should focus on removing hatchery fish, not increasing hatchery production, it's ludicrous.

    Will
  10. luv2fly2 Active Member

    Posts: 1,578
    .othello
    Ratings: +29 / 0
    will the new law where you can keep 1 wild steelhead per year affect the wenatchee and methow? mike w
  11. segge Member

    Posts: 44
    Puyallup, WA
    Ratings: +0 / 0
    I may be mistaken but that applies only to a few rivers on the OP. I personally think the law is a step in the wrong direction for wild fish restoration, which for me is what it is all about.

    Steve
  12. Will Atlas Guest

    Posts: 0
    Ratings: +0 / 0
    you cannot keep wild steelhead in any upper columbia tributary. They're a listed species
  13. Itchy Dog Some call me Kirk Werner

    Posts: 3,757
    Doo-vall
    Ratings: +444 / 1
    It sounds like everyone should write a letter to the editor explaining the error of their ways...