Washington Fly Fishing Forum banner

River closure

9K views 121 replies 33 participants last post by  Pat Lat 
#1 ·
"Action: Portions of the Cascade and Stillaguamish rivers will be closed to fishing."

check the WDFW web site for areas that will close.
 
#5 ·
Wow, they usually close the N. fork Nooksack this time of year to collect their hatchery livestock, must be getting a few back this year.
 
#13 ·
skyrise -
For decades the Snohomish system has benefited from the highest steelhead smolt survival rates seen in the Sound. Typically whether good or bad times the Snohomish survivals would be the highest followed by the Skagit with a sharp drop off as one moved further south in the Sound. Have to wonder that it may have something to do with the Snohomish fish having the most direct (quickest??) shot to the ocean. Those smolts leaving the north coast rivers typically have even better survivals so there may be something to that closeness to the ocean.

One thing that confounds the Snohomish system is the cormorant nesting colony found at the mouth of the river. Most of the cormorants leave the Puget Sound region to go to their respective nesting grounds leaving those at the mouth of the Snohomish. One would think that if cormorant predation were a major issue the smolt returns would be lower than average.

Curt
 
#28 ·
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!!
 
#31 ·
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!!
On second thought--Deleted.

I'm not going to get into this with you because there is clearly no point in doing so.

Sent from my HTCONE using Tapatalk
 
#29 ·
Finlover,

Many of those photos are old. Perspectives and knowledge change over time. I'm sure happy every event in my life was not photographed for future judgement.

As far as targetting wild fish goes. I target them with a clear conciense (sp?). I understand the mortality and feel it's acceptable in the populations I target. Because, it's super low.

Lastly, it's become clear that you have a problem with C&R. That is fine. I don't understand it, but it's fine. It may be better, so we all know what your actual problems are re: hatchery fish and C&R. It seems to deal with hte spring King hatchery lawsuit in Oregon. Mostly what you've done in your time here is to call people hypocrites and liars without backing it up much. What are these studies being used improperly? I am truly interested.

Go Sox,
cds
 
#30 ·
CS...the books are old and new; and some of those authors are still on this earth.

"I guess if my orgy days were over and I had my fun, I'd be advocating for abstinence or a total ban on sex too."

For the record, I practice catch n release for wild fish (I teach my son the same)..and .hatchery fish are fair game for the table.

The 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".

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.

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.

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??)

When it comes to the "science", it all comes down to who's paying for it as to the results we get.

Case in point, the studies regarding coffee and egg consumption...about every other week, it was "good" it was "bad" it was "good' it was "bad"... (you get the picture).

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.

ps: the Oregon lawsuit...are you referring to the McKenzie River? If so, to have a underlying motive hidden under the guise of conservation is the worst type of informational preaching out there...IMHO...but holding ODFW to the fire under the rules that have been established is good...unfortunately for ODFW, they have contradictory objectives trying to appease both sides of the table...and the fish didn't get an invite or table setting.
 
#33 ·
The 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?
Sg
 
#32 ·
http://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".
 
#48 ·
http://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".
Just check the thread on river closers
Things are looking up on the NF hatchery
 
#35 ·
"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."

"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.

Sg....THANK YOU for proving my point!! :D

OH...and I didn't say anything about "100% probability" science...

butfeelfreetoinjectyourscienceinanytime
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top