Hatchery strays deplete wild steelhead

Discussion in 'Steelhead' started by Chris Johnson, Dec 8, 2010.

  1. rwbailey05

    rwbailey05 GO COUGS

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2009
    Messages:
    662
    Likes Received:
    60
    Location:
    Spokane, Washington
    This was CLASSIC... completely agree
     
  2. Rob Allen

    Rob Allen Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2007
    Messages:
    2,785
    Likes Received:
    1,801
    Location:
    Vancouver WA
    ok lets put this to bed

    wdfw has done genetic testing on just about every stream on the state and for the most part has found the wild fish to be at least mostly pure.. and this goes right along with what the science would suggest, that is that hatchery fish that spawn in the wild do not contribute much at all to the long term gene pool simply because their progeny do not survive...

    that beside the point the wild fish we have now is what we have to work with we cannot turn back the clock and take what little hatchery genetics that has creaped into the wild gene pool out. Therefore we must treat our current wild stock as though they were pure..

    with that in mind we need to reduce the affects of hatchery fish that spawn in the wild by keeping them from spawning in the wild.
     
  3. Steve Call

    Steve Call Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 8, 2010
    Messages:
    1,582
    Likes Received:
    283
    Location:
    Wetside, WA
    This statement doesn't make sense. By that definition the rivers here were "relatively pristine" a hundred years ago. Does that mean our native runs were therefore mediocre? Is that why they've been devastated over the years?

    This is all really interesting, and leaves me wondering if I should abandon fishing for anadromous fish.
     
  4. bennysbuddy

    bennysbuddy the sultan of swing

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2010
    Messages:
    5,143
    Likes Received:
    3,090
    Location:
    m-ville
    This is all really interesting, and leaves me wondering if I should abandon fishing for anadromous fish.


    I think I'll take up gardening,I can use my rods for bean poles,and no worries if the waders leak!
     
  5. cabezon

    cabezon Sculpin Enterprises

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2004
    Messages:
    2,121
    Likes Received:
    808
    Location:
    Olympia, WA
    No, Steve, in a river (and ocean) where you face little competition for food, for safe places to hide from predators, for spawning sites, for mates, being O.K. genetically, is good enough to produce offspring. A hundred years ago, with the rivers filled to the brim with other fish (think of what the lower rivers looked like during the pink run two years ago) with their own mix of alleles, being O.K. wouldn't be good enough. The better allele combinations are the ones that spawn in the best locations (the ones that don't suffer from silting or erosion), produce offspring that are efficient in finding food and hiding from predators, that smolt at the appropriate size and head out to sea at the best time, that survive and thrive in the open ocean, and returns to produce their own offspring. The salmonids in the rivers of Chile and Argentine will evolve, just as ours have, to develop the mix of alleles that enhances survival, growth, and reproduction in individual river systems.

    If you abandon fishing for anadromous fish, I will happily take your rods and save you from using them to grow pole beans......

    Steve
     
  6. TD

    TD Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 5, 2009
    Messages:
    1,304
    Likes Received:
    622
    Location:
    North End
    I don't agree with this statement. I've read many reports and literature regarding this specifically and they all come to the same conclusion. The chambers fish were introduced into systems where the early Wild return (Nov - Dec) was in decline and struggling. The chamber fish were introduced specifically to maintain regulations for early retention of fish. This resulted in an increase in fishing pressure on these systems during the early run. The downside was the added pressure on these systems also adversly affected the already struggling early native runs. From everything I've read the WDFW admits this fully and makes the simple statement that the early runs will continue to receive the Chambers Creek fish so that the sport fishing community can have a kill season. This is mainly focused on West OP rivers.

    I have to admit, my opinions I've developed are solely from the information that I've dug out and read. I don't claim to know these things first hand. Still, every piece of literature I've come across on this specific item has made the same conclusion. If there are other more convincing reports/studies then I'd be interested in reading them.

    It appears that there is a strong requirement put on the WDFW to have regulations that allow retention of salmon/steelhead. The dept uses the Hatchery fish as a means to provide this. The problem is that the result is added pressure on the struggling native population. Setting CNR seasons increases illegal retention which is not easily enforced. I don't envy the WDFW commission with the conflicting constraints that they are tasked with. Baiscally, protect the fish and maintain retention regulations so people will buy licenses.

    There are not any easy answers. I think we all would be surprised at the actual numbers of fish that the Commercial community, tribe communities, and sport community kill each year. I would like to say that obviously we need to improve logging and development practices. We need to stop river dredging as a means to prevent flooding (which has shown to increase flooding due to the gravel and sand accumulation in the mouths). We need to stop commercial and tribe fishing. We need to impose all CNR fishing. However, I know that it isn't so easy to tell thousands of people that their livelyhood is being taken away so we can study the effects on the return of wild andronomous fish.

    Geez... I didn't mean to carry on like that.
     
  7. Checkthisout

    Checkthisout Member

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2010
    Messages:
    75
    Likes Received:
    14
    Location:
    Redmond, Washington
    The article is propaganda. You can tell that simply by looking at the conspiracy theory in the last paragraph concerning revenue and hatcheries.

    Be careful what you wish for.

    Without Hatcheries, you will not be fishing for steelhead period. You'll notice now when nates are in the sky that you can't wet a line at all.

    The rivers have been rip-wrapped, the watersheds are developed and logged.

    I personally notice the salmon returns fluctuate in relation to winter flooding that wipes out the reds.

    Calling for a ban on hatcheries will not help wild fish and will only result in a total closure for steelhead fishing except for the OLP.
     
  8. cabezon

    cabezon Sculpin Enterprises

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2004
    Messages:
    2,121
    Likes Received:
    808
    Location:
    Olympia, WA
    Let's say, for the sake of argument, that the direct and indirect impacts of hatchery fish on wild fish populations will eventually cause the extinction of wild fish on rivers with hatcheries. Would this be an acceptable outcome to you as long as you could still fish for hatchery steelhead?

    Steve
     
  9. stilly stalker

    stilly stalker Tuna sniffer

    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2010
    Messages:
    1,863
    Likes Received:
    475
    Location:
    Carlsbad, CA
    so here is where the elwha restoration REALLY has a chance to contribute some AMZING scientific data towards the LEAVE EM ALONE theory of fisheries management. Lets extend the fishing ban to ten years, and see how wild runs bounce back. Not much to lose, EVERYRTHING to gain!
     
  10. Chris Johnson

    Chris Johnson Member: Native Fish Society

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2006
    Messages:
    2,908
    Likes Received:
    1,075
    Location:
    Bellingham Wa.
    Not seeing the conspiracy theory Bro.
     
  11. Chris Johnson

    Chris Johnson Member: Native Fish Society

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2006
    Messages:
    2,908
    Likes Received:
    1,075
    Location:
    Bellingham Wa.
    Absofuckinglutely not!!
     
  12. bennysbuddy

    bennysbuddy the sultan of swing

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2010
    Messages:
    5,143
    Likes Received:
    3,090
    Location:
    m-ville
    this could be a interesting poll
     
  13. stilly stalker

    stilly stalker Tuna sniffer

    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2010
    Messages:
    1,863
    Likes Received:
    475
    Location:
    Carlsbad, CA
    I would move to montana or alaska so fast if they shut down fishing here. I think that a total COMMERCIAL closure is a much more appropriate course of action, as well as reversing how we manage our fishery. Max harvest/minimum escapement is BULLSHIT
     
  14. Checkthisout

    Checkthisout Member

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2010
    Messages:
    75
    Likes Received:
    14
    Location:
    Redmond, Washington
    Of course not but someone will need to show data (hell I even taken anecdotal evidence) that hatcheries are causing the extinction of wild fish.

    I would merely point at the OLP. The nates do good there because the head and midwaters of the rivers are in a national park and have not been logged and developed (and dammed).

    Hatcheries are a mitigator.

    They were built because the runs were already depleted, not because the runs were strong and healthy.
     
  15. Chris Johnson

    Chris Johnson Member: Native Fish Society

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2006
    Messages:
    2,908
    Likes Received:
    1,075
    Location:
    Bellingham Wa.
    Tons of data right here: nativefishsociety.org all you gotta do is read it!

    I don't believe anyone is saying that hatcheries are THE cause of the decline of wild fish, but they certainly are a contributing factor, done under the guise of " mitigation"