Hatcheries vs. No Hatcheries

[Tony Buzolich]

This ought to bring up a lot of armchair type discussion. In a previous post Dustin Revel metioned that he thought they (the Feds) ought to get rid of all hatcheries. It was stated that the Feds cut back on hatchery production and thus less steelhead in the rivers. I believe this hold true for salmon as well on other rivers such as the SAC and the Feather.

If this is in fact really true, then you could say that's why we're having such poor returns of both species in our rivers.

But, when the hatcheries where running in full capacity we had lots of fish in the rivers.

So, are were trying to get everything back to nature the way things were before dams and the lumber industry took it's toll with sedimentation, and miners did their damage with hydrolic excavation of gold?

We can't make things the way it used to be 150 years ago, anymore than we can reduce the population of California even if we sent every illegal back to where they came from.

My question is simply this: Would you rather fish in rivers full of hatchery fish or fish in rivers with few if any native spawned fish as conditions seem to be going by cutting back on hatchery production?
TONY

[luckydog]

My simple answer is I would like to see hatchery fish rather than few or no fish.

We have blocked off miles historical spawning/rearing habitat behind dams and weirs on most of our river systems. We've diverted river flows from one drainage to another. We export vast amounts of water south. Spawning gravels have been silted in and made unusable by fish by careless timber harvest, road building and past mining practices, even if the fish had access to them. Like it or not, the hatcheries we have are necessary to maintain fishable runs of steelhead and salmon in this State on rivers that have dams.

At the time the major dams were designed and built, the Bureau of Reclamation, Army Corp of Engineers and Cal Fish and Game knew that the dams would wipe out the fish populations over time and back in the 40's,50's,and 60's, it was considered an acceptable trade-off for water development and economic growth. Mitigation hatcheries were established and funded by the Feds as an afterthought to satisfy concerns for the loss of anadromous fish.

With that said, we should protect the wild fish that we have and work to maintain, expand and improve their habitat where feasible.

[Jgoding]

I'd have to say I would like to see an improvement in hatchery management. We're getting lousy returns but yet hatcheries seem to only want to meet their minimum numbers. Why not really load up on quality smolts and find new ways to introduce them into the system to get better survivability? At the same time we need to really improve management of resources for our wild stocks and really improve their habitat to ensure they get a fair shot and surviving. If this means eliminating sea lions in the river, reducing squawfish populations, and more closures during the spawn I'm all for it until populations and habitats are restored.

[luckydog]

I'd have to say I would like to see an improvement in hatchery management. We're getting lousy returns but yet hatcheries seem to only want to meet their minimum numbers. Why not really load up on quality smolts and find new ways to introduce them into the system to get better survivability? At the same time we need to really improve management of resources for our wild stocks and really improve their habitat to ensure they get a fair shot and surviving. If this means eliminating sea lions in the river, reducing squawfish populations, and more closures during the spawn I'm all for it until populations and habitats are restored.

While there is always room for improvement, I think the guys/gals that run our hatcheries are doing a good job given the funding and regulatory constraints they have. If I recall correctly, the Cal Department of Water Resources provides the funding for mitigation hatcheries and that funding is based on production and not directly on the number of fish that return. Improving monitoring of hatchery returns and escapement and gaining better understanding of the genetics of hatchery fish and naturally spawning fish are areas where improvements can be made.

When you look at what has been done with loss of habitat and water diversions/exports, it's a miracle that we even have any steelhead left in the Central Valley rivers. As far as survivability, the quality of smolts may be a factor but I think the greater impacts are ocean conditions, water diversion, water quality, and predation (due in part to conditions that exist in the Delta caused by the big pumps).

[Scott V]

Without hatchery fish there would be little to no fish in only a matter of time due to the amount of fish people keep. If we were to do away with all hatchery fish to try and bring things back to the way it use to, we would have to eliminate fishing in areas for years to allow nature to get back to what it was. But then everyone would be complaining that they can not fish and they no longer will be able to make money from guiding or whatever else it is they make money off of from the fish.

As much as I would love to see all wild fish, I do not think it can be achieved due to the pressure of the fishing that will continue. Having said all that I am for hatchery fish and hopefully they will have the funds to be more proficient in how they plant and what they plant.

[Mumbles]

My two cents is that if a river population has already been eradicated by man and his thoughtless pursuit of wealth then a hatchery program well managed is fine. If wild fish remain, protect the habitat, remove the fishing pressure and allow nature to rebound. I love bonking hatchery fish but to see them mixed in with the wild fish bothers me. The gauntlet of anglers trying to extract the hatchery drones also catch a lot of the wild fish and this can't be good. Are there not enough ruined rivers that we can afford to pump the hatchery stock into them and get the anglers there and off the rivers while wild stocks attempt to rebound?

[Jeff Fisher]

I've caught hundreds of steelhead on the American. There was not a single instance where I was disappointed or pissed off when, upon landing the fish, I realized it was clipped. I was freaking stoked on every steelhead I ever caught. I was thankfull for that hatchery up there at Nimbus. Hell.....it's a miracle that you can catch steelhead in the middle of an urban area of 2 million people, 5 minutes from my front door!

I always hated to see those pellet eaters on stringers. But, it's permitted, so I accepted it. But I always thought if everyone released every fish for a couple years, there'd be tons of fish in that river (a dream, of course).

But on places like the Mattole or other coastal streams where no hatchery fish exist, those are the ones that need the saving. The American and Feather are not fixable in regards to restoring natural orders. They are what they are, and I think we're lucky to have steelhead in them. Just think.......there could be none. And that would suck.......

Now pellet eating trout........that's a whole different story.......

[Larry S]

Just started reading "An Entirely Synthetic Fish: How Rainbow Trout Beguiled America and Overran the World" by Anders Halverson. A very interesting and detailed look at this
very question. I think you will be hearing a lot about this book in the near future.
Larry S

[trinity]

I'd rather see our rivers without hatcheries, and force better management of the streams. People talk about the poor returns this year on the Trinity, but I honestly think it's not really that bad, it's stealheading! A lot of the tributaries are loaded with wild fish. I'm not catching as many this year, but its still fun to me because it just adds to the challenge of the game. This year on the Trinity threw a lot of people off because of the timing of the runs. Lots of wild fish came early and headed for the tribs, fishermen missed them. Wild winter fish are starting to trickle in now, (which is the most fun to me, and the biggest challenge). I am not discouraged and I am still trying to find wild fish. It's hard, but that is why I love it. If it was easy, I would find something else to do. Stealheading can be so rewarding, why dumb it down with talk of "how many?" which is what hatchery programs do. If you want numbers just fish for trout on the lower sac, which is great fun, but it's not steelheading!

[Jgoding]

Hey lucky,

I didn't mean to imply that the hatcheries are not working hard, only that it could probably be done better and at the same time provide some answers to why returns are so low. I do know a lot of it probably has to do with funding as well and we all know they probably get minimal amounts to work with.

[luckydog]

Hey lucky,

I didn't mean to imply that the hatcheries are not working hard, only that it could probably be done better and at the same time provide some answers to why returns are so low. I do know a lot of it probably has to do with funding as well and we all know they probably get minimal amounts to work with.

Here's an a link to a research paper on Central Valley Steelhead by Dennis McEwan, DFG Biologist. http://www.sjrdotmdl.org/concept_model/phys-chem_model/documents/300001435.pdf

He points out that there is a paucity of info on steelhead and problems with coordinating research and monitoring efforts. This is hindering effective management. He also points out that some water management actions intended to help chinook salmon is detrimental to steelhead. On a somewhat positive note, he notes that there is evidence of wild steelhead in some San Joaquin tribs despite the changes that occurred in those streams.

Another book, California's Salmon and Steelhead, http://publishing.cdlib.org/ucpressebooks/view?docId=ft209nb0qn;brand=eschol contains articles by noteworthy salmon and steelhead advocates and fishery management professionals. Both the McEwan paper and this book provide some very good info on what our what our fisheries were like from a historical perspective and how we got to where we are today.

It's a tragic story.

[tallguy]

No hatchery fish!

Hatcheries are a band aid designed to keep fishermen and all similar interested parties placated and docile when it comes to ongoing water diversions, watershed degradation, reductions in water quality and quantity, loss of habitat, etc.. Remove the hatchery fish and it would be far more likely that fishermen, communities, etc would begin to stand up and require changes in how our watersheds are managed. Though fun to catch, hatchery fish are a pale imitation of the real thing, and their presence should serve as an ongoing reminder that something is wrong, and needs to be fixed.

Salmon and steelhead are our canaries in the coal mines with respect to water quality and watershed health. We should not accept their loss lightly, and we should not be bought off so easily with a few hundred thousand imitations of the real thing.

Accept the hatchery fish and you accept the status quo: a broken watershed. Expect more; there is no real reason that a hatchery ecosystem is the best we can do.

[JayDubP]

$$$$$$ that is all it will take. Problem is State of California does not have any $$$$, so they cut such things as hatcheries................ I like other posters, have never hooked a Steelhead and thought "dang, this is a hatchery fish". Every Steelhead I have caught has been a fantastic experience............ If Steelhead were totally C & R with single barbelss hooks- people would still fish for them (look at British Columbia)....... so, get $$ for the hatcheries, and raise high quality fih that can breed in the wild.

[luckydog]

No hatchery fish!

Hatcheries are a band aid designed to keep fishermen and all similar interested parties placated and docile when it comes to ongoing water diversions, watershed degradation, reductions in water quality and quantity, loss of habitat, etc.. Remove the hatchery fish and it would be far more likely that fishermen, communities, etc would begin to stand up and require changes in how our watersheds are managed. Though fun to catch, hatchery fish are a pale imitation of the real thing, and their presence should serve as an ongoing reminder that something is wrong, and needs to be fixed.

Salmon and steelhead are our canaries in the coal mines with respect to water quality and watershed health. We should not accept their loss lightly, and we should not be bought off so easily with a few hundred thousand imitations of the real thing.

Accept the hatchery fish and you accept the status quo: a broken watershed. Expect more; there is no real reason that a hatchery ecosystem is the best we can do.

If we lived in a perfect world, our rivers would be full of fish, water would come out of our faucets on demand, food would be plentiful and cheap, there would be no property damage from floods, and we would need no hatcheries to augment declining fish populations.

Our watersheds are broken because most Californians want cheap food, protection from flooding and a reliable water supply. The majority of Californians live where local supplies are insufficient to meet demand for water. Because we have dams and a huge plumbing system to meet the demand for water, hundreds of miles of spawning and rearing habitat are no longer accessible by steelhead/salmon.

There are actions that have been taken and are planned to improve watershed management practices for the benefit of fish. This is good, but those are band-aids too. We can dump tons of gravel below the dams to restore spawning habitat but that would not recreate the genetic diversity of our steelhead runs. In fact, much of this diversity in the Central Valley is already lost. To get to the point where we have historical fish populations or even truly viable and diverse runs of wild fish, the dams have to go. Yes, that means Shasta, Clair Engle, Lewiston, Oroville, Van Arsdale, Nimbus/Folsom, Friant, etc. This would give the fish access to their historic spawning and rearing areas.

There is no amount of political or economic pressure that fishermen or rural communities can create that would result in this happening in California. Southern California residents, Napa Valley/Sonoma vineyards, Central Valley farmers would have to agree to give up their water supply reliability in favor of restoring salmon/steelhead habitat. I don't see this happening anytime soon.

[jbird]

Prediction; This thread is 5 pages long this time tomorrow, and locked by Thanksgiving. ;-)

[cjlang]

Without a doubt, I would choose to fish a river with few wild fish as opposed to a river full of hatchery stock. People complaining about not catching 2-3 fish a day while steelheading are a joke.

[Darian]

This thread does little but restate the obvious and offers few if any realistic ideas for solutions. IMHO, there's one truth in all of it. We all want/demand services from government but lack the will to pay for it. That's the way it's been for a very long time. Ergo, this situation will not likely be resolved in my lifetime.... :-|

Keep the hatcheries going.... :nod:

[mr. 3 wt.]

Unfortunately hatcheries are a thing of the present and future. Without them we wouldn't have steelhead and salmon on many of our rivers. My opinion is is to load up the rivers that are already to far gone and conserve the few that have a chance. Unless we start tearing down damns and close down the rivers to fishing, rivers like the american and feather will never recover. Trinity is questionable. It might be able to recover but its popularity doesn't give it much of a chance.

My vote goes to the hatcheries on this one. I enjoy catching steelhead, hatchery fish or not.

[Mike R]

I love hatchery fish. They're delicious!!!

[mikel]

Both posts, while short seem to get to the answer. Protect the waters where wild fish have the opportunity to be self sustaining and plant the waters that can only support hatchery fish. It's a water by water decision.

-Mike

[Bill Kiene semi-retired]

We have been discussing this same subject for decades now.

My first comment is to say that collectively we still don't understand mother nature all that well. Everyone seems to be an expert on this subject with a lot of "I think.." going on. I still believe even the best biologists don't have it all figured out yet.

Right now we are having a better return of King Salmon in some of the valley rivers. I believe this is due to the ocean food conditions more than anything. I predict that next fall will be even better for King Salmon in Nor Cal.

I think that the valley rivers being damed up totally need to have hatcheries but some of our fairly wild rivers like the Smith, Klamath, Trinity, Eel, Matole, etc should be managed differently.

Some of these rivers have tributaries that have no dams to restrict spawning so that is a different situation.

I think some of our rivers are healing up some after years of much less logging going on.

Some old dams are coming down now too.

I did hear the Feds are restricting the state anadromous hatcheries but who is to say there is any state money to run the hatcheries all that well anyway?

[OceanSunfish]

No hatchery fish!

Hatcheries are a band aid designed to keep fishermen and all similar interested parties placated and docile when it comes to ongoing water diversions, watershed degradation, reductions in water quality and quantity, loss of habitat, etc.. Remove the hatchery fish and it would be far more likely that fishermen, communities, etc would begin to stand up and require changes in how our watersheds are managed. Though fun to catch, hatchery fish are a pale imitation of the real thing, and their presence should serve as an ongoing reminder that something is wrong, and needs to be fixed.

Salmon and steelhead are our canaries in the coal mines with respect to water quality and watershed health. We should not accept their loss lightly, and we should not be bought off so easily with a few hundred thousand imitations of the real thing.

Accept the hatchery fish and you accept the status quo: a broken watershed. Expect more; there is no real reason that a hatchery ecosystem is the best we can do.

"Remove the hatchery fish and it would be far more likely that fishermen, communities, etc would begin to stand up and require changes in how our watersheds are managed."

I would like to believe this would actually happen but in all honesty, "fisherman" have become extremely marginalized....... Plus, we can barely muster up a coalition to fight Westlands, et. al. today! I mean, I've tried to literally shame many of my fishing friends to contribute to CSPA, but they won't bother!? Maybe, and just maybe, they just might pitch in a buck or two if there is a chance at winning a raffle prize..... ugh.

As far as "Communities" pitching in..... well, let me say that "communities" with the resources to do so are populated by most folks more interested in wearing out their thumbs on their phone's keypad while drinking coffee at Starbucks.... Let me provide further proof...... Santa Clara County, an area that has seen little setback in this recession, will spend $2 million to connect the walking/running/biking trails along Los Gatos Creek to other trails nearby allowing people to expand their workouts..... When interviewed on the radio, a 'person' was excited because that meant that person, who was training for a marathon, would be able to extend their run without having to run the same path twice or three times, essentially doing loops to get in their needed miles..... ugh.

Boy, $2 mil would go a long way to 'fight the good fight', wouldn't it?

Folks, that, in a nutshell, is what inhabits most of $$$$ rich California today. And, sadly, most in $$$$ rich California today don't give a rat's arse about steelhead or salmon, because if they did, we'd already would've had a revolution by now based on the returns of the past 3 to 5 years.....

We need to get real, real fast. Even Bob Franko left California and that told me a lot with regards to what kind of future we have for our fisheries......

Oh BTW, IMO, Hatcheries are necessary on rivers with dams that block fish from reaching their ancestral spawning grounds. Riverways that have seen little detrimental impact by man should remain wild fish only.

[Frank Alessio]

It is absolutely amazing what a 15 Hour drive does for a Fishery......

[Dustin Revel]

This thread does little but restate the obvious and offers few if any realistic ideas for solutions. IMHO, there's one truth in all of it. We all want/demand services from government but lack the will to pay for it. That's the way it's been for a very long time. Ergo, this situation will not likely be resolved in my lifetime.... :-|

Keep the hatcheries going.... :nod:

First i would like to point out that i would like to pay the same amount i currently am but receive fewer services... however, the state and federal government are complete morons when it comes to conserving excess money; therefore, i would rather see my money (that would no longer be spent on the hatcheries) spent on stream restoration rather than buying $1000 hammers, $5,000,000 cogen plants (that never produced either heat or e-), or the $100,000 signs that tell us our money is at work (doing useless projects that only prolong our national misery).

We all know there is NO accountability when it comes to government spending.

but all this is irrelevent in terms of the original question.

[EricO]

"We all know there is NO accountability when it comes to government spending."

Dustin.....word.

Imagine what could be done to improve certain fisheries with even a small portion of that
wasted $ put into our rivers.

EO

[Frank Alessio]

And We (not me) Keep on electing the same old Democrats.... Boxer finkelstine Brown and expect sanity.......

[Darian]

I'm always amazed when the only response to be made to the point that we don't want to pay for government services boils down to that one word: accountability. I've been hearing that for so long it has become a cliche for those who want to justify why they don't want to pay for services they demand (government or private) for use when it suits them. :|

In the recent election, a proposition passed that requires a public vote to raise fees. We may live to regret that vote since licenses issued by DFG are paid for thru a fee. There're other fees that impact DFG in the same limbo. So, we bitch & moan about how low funding is for DFG and then approve an initiative that may even further limit their ability to raise funds to carry out their mandate.... :( How about holding ourselves accountable for some of our problems :?: In the words of Pogo, "We have met the enemy and he is us." :nod:

[OceanSunfish]

I'm not the first to say: Democracy only works with accountability and Capitalism only works with integrity. We've hardly had both the past 10-15 years.....

Unfortunately, this State is so broken that the subject of this thread is, unfortunately, deemed insignificant by the general population when compared to all that ills this state.....

I would love to see concerns that we all share with regards to our Fish and Game be front/center on the floor of the State Assembly, but unfortunately, our "wheel" isn't squeeky enough (aka, rich enough)

So, what do we have to do.....? Do we need to raise enough funds to be able to support two full time lobbyist (players) and get into the ballgame? Until there is complete accountability in our government and complete integrity in our corporations, (or when hell freezes over) we'll need to play the game as is....... right?

[BillB]

I saw first hand today the results of a stream restoration project. I am very impressed!

[Darian]

BillB,.... Saw your fish and was impressed, too. Good gto have that kind of fishing in your own back yard. :nod:

OS,.... When you consider that most of the people eligible to vote in this state and nationally don't, there's not a lot we can do. Frankly, I'm not sure our two party system is viable any longer. It certainly doesn't seem to make much difference in terms of fish & wildlife issues which party is in power (witness Democrat Feinstein is seen as an ally of Westlands and the former Republican admin was not overly helpful either). :confused:

I do believe and have recommended on more than one occasion that we should buy our own lobbyist/politicians and get into the game. However, I'm a bit leary of using environmental organizations (NGO's) lobbyists as they don't always have the same priorities. :confused: As an example of how things can change in this arena, I used to do a lot of volunteer work for California Common Cause, an organization that advocates for good government and has a bi-partisan membership. :nod: The work I did for them involved some tax policy/revision. Then the directors changed and tax policy was no longer of interest. :| So, maybe the solution is to attack on all fronts.... :confused:

This subject is probably not appropriate for the BB anyway.... :|

[OceanSunfish]

BillB,.... Saw your fish and was impressed, too. Good gto have that kind of fishing in your own back yard. :nod:

OS,.... When you consider that most of the people eligible to vote in this state and nationally don't, there's not a lot we can do. Frankly, I'm not sure our two party system is viable any longer. It certainly doesn't seem to make much difference in terms of fish & wildlife issues which party is in power (witness Democrat Feinstein is seen as an ally of Westlands and the former Republican admin was not overly helpful either). :confused:

I do believe and have recommended on more than one occasion that we should buy our own lobbyist/politicians and get into the game. However, I'm a bit leary of using environmental organizations (NGO's) lobbyists as they don't always have the same priorities. :confused: As an example of how things can change in this arena, I used to do a lot of volunteer work for California Common Cause, an organization that advocates for good government and has a bi-partisan membership. :nod: The work I did for them involved some tax policy/revision. Then the directors changed and tax policy was no longer of interest. :| So, maybe the solution is to attack on all fronts.... :confused:

This subject is probably not appropriate for the BB anyway.... :|

I think this "subject" should be appropriate..... I'm sick and tired of our of continual passive approach with regards to righting fish and game management. We need to get into the 'game'.

Perhaps the first step is to fight to restore the DFG to an agency that actually manages our Californian heritage: Fish and Game. Then ask that a separate agency be formed to handle conservation issues that the DFG seems to hogtied to, etc. "Hooks and Bullets" revenue is supposed to support sportfishing and hunting, not the study of the Brown Pelican.

Lastly, I see that Westlands left the 'table' of the Bay Delta Conservation Plan. I guess they weren't going to get 100% their way, so they left. It's sad that they aren't interested in 'balance' but rather the solution that will allow them to meet their (oversold)contractual water deliveries..... It's also sad that it comes down to party lines too and not what is right or good for us all.

http://www.sacbee.com/2010/11/24/3208457/westlands-quits-delta-habitat.html

[Dustin Revel]

I'm always amazed when the only response to be made to the point that we don't want to pay for government services boils down to that one word: accountability. I've been hearing that for so long it has become a cliche for those who want to justify why they don't want to pay for services they demand (government or private) for use when it suits them :nod:

Our government was built to resist change, and over the course of several centuries it has slowly transformed into this sad excuse we know it as today.

Private businesses are far more efficient than almost any government agency. The national forest service is the first that comes to mind. A private forest management company could do what the forest service does with half of the budget. In many ways government agencies are just around as a form of welfare; they create useless jobs that are completely unnecessary. We are literally supporting people through their lives to do unnecessary tasks.

If we give the state or feds more money they will just find a new and creative way to waste it, and frankly i would rather give money to support private industry.

I'm not trying to offend anyone here that may work for the government, there are plenty of hardworking men and women that work for the gov.

back to the original point...
I would love to see the closure of all coastal hatcheries (blue lake, rowdy creek, etc). I can live with having hatcheries on the american and other damned rivers (pun intended).

[Darian]

Dustin,.... I respect your conservative values but think you might be overstating the case about private industry being so efficient. If it was, there would be far fewer personal and business bankruptcy petitions filed for this district. During the year 2000, bankruptcy petitions filed numbered approximately 3,200 per month. According to recent reporting in the SacBee, there're many more filings per month now. Of course, we've just seen a wave of petitions filed by some of our largest industrial (GM/Chrysler) and financial institutions (AIG, ad nauseum).

Big agriculture (corporate farms, a private enterprise) has been granted so many subsidies from the feds and this state to make it competitive internationally they're almost to numerous to count (by type and dollar amount). They, themselves admit that they couldn't produce food or fiber products without illegal farm laborers but lets not get into that here. Efficient :question: I think not. :neutral:

After about 25 years of following both small, medium and larger businesses of all types in SoCal and NorCal, I came to the conclusion that the only real innovation and efficiency exists in small and medium business. The larger an entity becomes, the more bureaucratic or quasi-governmental in behavior it behaves. For example, almost all large IT companies (IBM in particular) partners with small/smaller businesses as a strategy to incorporate innovation, new technology and/or intellectual property. True, some of things are developed in house but not anywhere near all. Believe me, IBM is about as bureaucratic/quasi-governmental as it gets.

Now as to the word accountability. It's my experience that true accountability is only partially achievable by those in government given the need to be flexible in managing programs/resources. There's already a very large body of rules/regulations concerning everything from behavior on the job, labor issues, efficiency and protection of resources for government officials. They don't seem to be any more effective than those applied to private industry. The problem is that people will be people regardless of who employs them. Most of the problems we see in government were initiated by elected officials that came from private enterprise and stayed to become career politicians. Thus, the need to be informed and vote.

I'm not a fan of taxes anymore than anyone else but trying to hold government accountable by withholding funding (fees/taxes) just assures their programs fail. There's no free lunch and, no matter how hard we click our heels together, things will never return to what they were in the distant past. :neutral:

[Phil Synhorst]

Private businesses are far more efficient than almost any government agency. The national forest service is the first that comes to mind. A private forest management company could do what the forest service does with half of the budget. In many ways government agencies are just around as a form of welfare; they create useless jobs that are completely unnecessary. We are literally supporting people through their lives to do unnecessary tasks.

If we give the state or feds more money they will just find a new and creative way to waste it, and frankly i would rather give money to support private industry.



Sorry Dustin, but private business is only efficient at one thing....making money. Turning over this part of our infrastructure to corporations, instead of keeping it in the peoples hands would be disastrous.

The govt. having control of "the commons", public lands, infrastructure, etc., means WE have control it. The problem is, as others have stated, most of us don't make our voices heard. We have the ability to elect officials who will put the right people in place to manage things properly, if they don't they can be voted out. What control do any of us have over a corporation? None, unless you can get enough people with A LOT of money to buy a majority stock, and run the company in the interest of the people....never gonna happen.

I'll give you two examples. My county and city sold off water delivery(county), and garbage service(city) to private corps. Right away both companies raised our rates, which we were told would not happen for a while; and keep increasing the rates at a higher percent than when controlled by local govt.. In the roughly ten years since, we have seen no improvement to either service.

All that being said, I do think govt. and private business can work well together. Govt. having control/oversight, and business getting the work done.


Now, to get off my soap box and address the original topic.:)

Until Californians collectively have the will to restore the ecosystem, for our own good, as well as that of the other creatures that depend upon it, hatcheries seem to be a necessary evil. Hatchery fish are not ideal, but possibly the reason we still have any Steelhead and Salmon in some rivers at all. Hopefully the day will come again, when the fish don't need our help to thrive, much less just survive.

[Frank Alessio]

I just returned from a great Steelhead fishing trip on the Grand Ronde in Oregon... We caught both Hatchery and Wild Steelhead... Everyone I saw catch fish had to wait until the fish came to hand in order to look to see if it had a fin clipped or not to tell if it was Wild or Hatchery. One of the local residents said to me tongue in cheek "Do you really think they actually mark every Hatchery fish they raise??? Other than the physical absense of the fin, what is the difference in these fish... Also if a Hatchery fish later spawns in the River is there any way the offspring differ from Wild fish that spawn in the river????

[Covelo]

Also if a Hatchery fish later spawns in the River is there any way the offspring differ from Wild fish that spawn in the river????

Studies have shown lowered fitness at least 2 generations out when hatchery fish spawn with wild fish.

http://www.physorg.com/news163845102.html

http://rsbl.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/5/5/621.full.pdf+html?sid=f836e24d-a531-40fa-9f24-511f97d9ae63

[Frank Alessio]

That is very interesting information.. Thank you

[aaron]

Studies have shown lowered fitness at least 2 generations out when hatchery fish spawn with wild fish.

http://www.physorg.com/news163845102.html

http://rsbl.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/5/5/621.full.pdf+html?sid=f836e24d-a531-40fa-9f24-511f97d9ae63

Thanks for posting this Covelo. There are several fly clubs spending time and money to trying to protect hatchery fish and promote them spawning. Why is beyond me.

[luckydog]

Thanks for posting this Covelo. There are several fly clubs spending time and money to trying to protect hatchery fish and promote them spawning. Why is beyond me.

The reason why is that we as anglers have different values and attitudes as seen in this thread. Sometimes these differences in values put us at odds with each other so nothing gets done other than lots of complaining.

You've got to give some credit to the clubs you mentioned. At least they've committed their time and money towards accomplishing something that they believe is worthwhile.

[mr. 3 wt.]

Something to think about. What if, for all you hatchery haters, they closed all the hatcheries. What now? Most rivers would be void of salmon and steelhead. The few that still have fish will all of a sudden have tons of added pressure. Or better yet, just close all rivers to salmon and steehead fishing all together. It would probably take a lifetime for the rivers even to remotely get back to so-called normal numbers. In order to get rivers back in shape we would also have to tear down damns. Hmmmm....which would mean less hydro-electric plants. Where do we get electric now after the damns are gone. More nuke plants? That's a good idea. Three-mile island, Chernoble ring a bell? Also, with the damns gone, where do we get water for the water hungry farmers? Or worse yet, our buddies down in so-cal, they have a lote of landscaping and pools down there that use a lot of our water.

What I see is a delicate balance of many many things here. Damns are not going away. Solutions, put a hatchery on it. Manage it as a hatchery fishery. A HATCHERY FISHERY, not a wild fishery. Yeah, mixing the two is retarded. Then all those studies could be valid. Basically, throwing the public a bone. We need the American, Mad, Feather and Trinity River hatchery to apease the masses. And I mean masses, everyone wants to be called a steelhead fisherman it seems like. Coastal streams and rivers should have strict regulation (most do) and be managed like wild fish fisherys. How hard is that? Seems to me like common sense to me. All this money and time spent bitchin about this and that could be spent on conserving and restoring what wild rivers rivers we still have. I bet most of these so-called steelheader never even fished the Mattole, S. Fork Eel, Garcia..........and hopefully most will be content just staying put on the forementioned rivers where the hatcherys are just pumpin out the fish. Trust me, you wild fish fishermen don't want these so-called steelhead fishermen that populate these lesser than rivers invading your river. I hope some of you guys see what I see.

[ycflyfisher]

Does anyone actually have a link about this supposed "Fed" reduction in mitigation hatchery production? I don't recall any of this making it past the draft stages and don't recall anything that was applicable to mitigation facilities in CA.

[Frank Alessio]

Right about Hatcheries wrong about Nuke plants... 50 % = Fail

[mr. 3 wt.]

Right about Hatcheries wrong about Nuke plants... 50 % = Fail

I was being sarcastic. Where does that put me now? ;-)

[Frank Alessio]

!00% Correct = A+ Sorry My Bad....

[BillB]

Okay I'm braced! I still believe that habitat degradation has a significantly greater impact on salmonid sustainability than fly fishermen. I don't which to minimize the effect that humans have on wildlife, but when you take into account the population of the bay area compared to fly fishermen there is a significant difference in numbers. Therefore, those that don't fish (any kind!) damage the environment too, and there are many. Now I don't know for sure but I am reasonably sure bay area water is not from desalinization. Seems I once read about John Muirs outrage over the construction of Hetch-Hetchy. I'm sure someone will soon educate me.

[mr. 3 wt.]

!00% Correct = A+ Sorry My Bad....

All good! :-)

[Darian]

IMHO, negative impacts of habitat degradation due to human activities isn't hard to recognize but since fly fisherman are part of human activities and we carry out many more activities that're not related to fly fishing, we contribute to degradation, as much as anyone else (direct and/or indirect). :nod:

Altho, I'm fairly sure that there're no active desal plants in the Bay Area yet, there are several in the proposed stages. For now, EBMUD draws their water from Hetch Hetchy (?), Mokelumne River, the Sacramento River at/near the Sacramento water Districts pumping station and local sources. A couple of the more prominent problems with implementing desal in this state is 1) the level of objections to potential side affects of these projects and 2) the high costs involved. As a result, most projects are proposed as public private partnerships. This has, also, become a point of contention. Seems like there's so many objections to projects of any type, that we're not likely to see any of them implemented. That's why I made the comment that it probably won't happen in my lifetime in my original post. :|

[Covelo]

Okay I'm braced! I still believe that habitat degradation has a significantly greater impact on salmonid sustainability than fly fishermen. I don't which to minimize the effect that humans have on wildlife, but when you take into account the population of the bay area compared to fly fishermen there is a significant difference in numbers. Therefore, those that don't fish (any kind!) damage the environment too, and there are many. Now I don't know for sure but I am reasonably sure bay area water is not from desalinization. Seems I once read about John Muirs outrage over the construction of Hetch-Hetchy. I'm sure someone will soon educate me.

I agree. I just do not know why you would limit it to fly fishermen only. Sport fishermen overall have had minimal impacts to salmon and steelhead runs except in a few specific instances.

[BillB]

You are right Covelo. I didn't intend to limit to just fly fishers. It's just that fly fishers are such a small sub-group of all fishers who are, in turn, a small sub-group compared to all those who live in areas that have an impact on resources vital to salmonids.

Darian you have a point. We are all culpable to one degree or another and, I suppose, we could trace that to the beginning of time. However, if fly (fishers) also participate in those "daily activities" and fish, does that make them one degree more harmful than those who don't fish. If so does the amount of time and money contributed to wildlife restoration and/or rehabilitative activities at least offset fishing? There seems, at least to me, a similarity to density of numbers, if you will. This is a discussion that could cut into copious amounts of fishing time.

I am deeply pessimistic that we will ever repair the damage that has been done.

[Loren E]

I'm surprised Covelo's point about the negative effect of hatchery fish on wild fish has not been discussed more. I hear the point that with people killing fish, if there are 3 hatchery fish in the river to every 1 wild fish then it is more likely a hatchery fish will be killed than a wild one, but isn't it true that hatchery fish often times inter-breed with wild fish and then pollute the wild gene pool, even further hurting the wild populations? This is why if we really care about the wild fish, the two steps to be taken would be to get rid of the hatchery fish, and then make it catch and release so the fishermen who want to bonk fish won't come.

Like someone mentioned, it is a tough issue because as fishermen it is tough enough to get behind an issue and unite, but with this one especially it varies so much individual to individual. Many want steelhead in the rivers, period, and couldn't care less if it has an adipose fin. I am on the opposite end of the spectrum. This isn't meant as snobbery, and is only personal, but for me fly fishing is about a wilderness experience and interacting with nature. I see hatchery fish as a human creation, and it just doesn't do anything for me to land a fish that is there because people spawned it, raised it in pens, and then released it into the river...that is way too much human involvement, to me it is fundamentally weird that we are carrying out the spawning process FOR the fish, I feel as if I might as well be at the put and take trout pond. I would much rather that money and effort that went into the hatchery operation be put into protecting wild fish spawning habitat....somewhere like the Russian River I choose to not even fish anymore because I am almost assured if I catch anything it will be a hatchery fish. This is a purely personal view, but I am curious if anyone else feels the same way (would rather catch 1 wild fish than 1000 hatchery fish).

It is very depressing to me that so many fish stocks are now so human supported. Even white sea bass in CA, redfish in Texas, and Snook in Florida have big hatchery operations, and our own striped bass that took off as wild populations after being introduced were supplemented with hatchery fish in the 90s I think it was. Will we get to the point that every fish population left is dependent on some hatchery somewhere where our money that could have been used to to help save the last of the wild stocks is instead going to help create more of these swimming human creations, and this action is still so supported and "appreciated"?

[Larry S]

Bump to top -



Just started reading "An Entirely Synthetic Fish: How Rainbow Trout Beguiled America and Overran the World" by Anders Halverson. A very interesting and detailed look at this
very question. I think you will be hearing a lot about this book in the near future.
Larry S

[Darian]

Loren,.... I'm not sure there's anyone on this BB that wouldn't support your idealistic sentiment. Also, I recognize and respect this as a personal choice. :nod:

However, the reality is that hatchery reared Salmon/Steelhead are here and it wouldn't be easy to reduce their population significantly and probably impossible to remove them entirely from any drainage they currently occupy. Since hatchery fish interbreed with natural spawners and become visually identical to marked/tagged fish, it would be impossible to identify which to eliminate on scene. :confused:

We could stop hatchery production of Steelhead but would that really change the fact that the original gene pool has already been degraded :?: Further, if hatchery reared Steelhead were removed, many rivers and streams might be either barren or support populations so small in number that those waters would have to be closed for protection. IMHO, given the changes in their environment/habitat, native Salmon/Steelhead may not recover in the mid to long term anyway. :-|

In the case of Salmon, hatcheries supported an offshore, commercial as well as recreational fishery and we're spending massive amounts of money ($140 million for BDCP so far) studying how to restore Salmon/Striper fisheries and farming activities in the name restoring the Delta. About 4 years ago, AB7 was passed which mandated that a specified portion of license funding be spent on hatcheries to keep them open (not sure if Steelhead hatcheries were included in that, tho). At any rate, I don't see your thought about altering how money is spent in this arena gaining traction with state government. :-|

Finally, I'm wondering why you see it as somehow disappointing to fish for hatchery reared Steelhead but it's OK to fish for Stripers in the surf around the Bay Area :?: Aren't a great number of those fish progeny of hatchery raised Stripers :?: How many generations of interbreeding does it take for Salmon/Steelhead/Stripers to become acceptable to us as fisherman :?:

[Nailknot]

Recent studies have shown extremely low reproductive success when hatchery and wild fish interbreed. And almost zero success when hatchery fish breed in the wild. Hatchery fish compete with wild fish for food and spawning gravel, but are not nearly as successful as wild fish. The idea that wild genetics have been replaced with hatchery genetics doesn't appear to be valid. In fact, when hatcheries are removed, wild fish repopulate at an amazing rate. Given this, why would we support more hatcheries, and not less? The above is steelhead specific.

[BillB]

Here is a question I have that someone is sure to know on this board. When discussing wild v. hatchery where do Vibert boxes fall in the discussion. Seems it may be a compromise from what I know, which is little.

[Loren E]

Finally, I'm wondering why you see it as somehow disappointing to fish for hatchery reared Steelhead but it's OK to fish for Stripers in the surf around the Bay Area :?: Aren't a great number of those fish progeny of hatchery raised Stripers :?: How many generations of interbreeding does it take for Salmon/Steelhead/Stripers to become acceptable to us as fisherman :?:

Darian, I don't think many of our stripers are progeny of hatchery raised stripers, this is probably a miniscule percentage. Our stripers were introduced back in the 1800s and then took off as a wild population and spawned on their own with remarkable success, their population booming. In the 90s there was some stocking done, but in this case I doubt that the stocking played much of a role as it was done for a such a short period of time. (I just used this as another example of where stocking has been done, though in the case of stripers, redfish, and snook these populations are mostly wild). What I'm getting at is that although this was an introduced population and there was a very little bit of hatchery support back in the 90s, I think it is safe to say the vast majority of the stripers we catch today are wild-spawned fish that have been spawning in a natural manner for well over a hundred years, versus a steelhead without an adipose fin. In other words, hypothetically if steelhead were introduced to a river a hundred years ago and then turned into a 99% wild population I see the wild offspring many generations later as a different animal than a hatchery-spawned fish. This is my personal view and that alone.

I agree that the government wouldn't put funding where I wish they would because they have sport, tribal, and commercial pressures, all of who want fish, regardless of whether it is hatchery or wild. Many seem very against the idea of facing closed rivers, but I'd personally rather see all fishing closed on a river for 20 or 30 years with realistic hope of a sustainable wild population at some point, rather than getting to keep fishing even though it is for hatchery fish. Closing rivers is not such a bad thing IMHO, who knows maybe Papermill Creek will have healthy stocks of wild coho and steelhead for my children to fish for one day.

Nailknot, very interesting info, thanks for that, any chance you might be able to pass on any links to these studies? I'd be very interested to read more specifics.

[mr. 3 wt.]

[QUOTE=Loren E;90275]
I agree that the government wouldn't put funding where I wish they would because they have sport, tribal, and commercial pressures, all of who want fish, regardless of whether it is hatchery or wild. Many seem very against the idea of facing closed rivers, but I'd personally rather see all fishing closed on a river for 20 or 30 years with realistic hope of a sustainable wild population at some point, rather than getting to keep fishing even though it is for hatchery fish. Closing rivers is not such a bad thing IMHO, who knows maybe Papermill Creek will have healthy stocks of wild coho and steelhead for my children to fish for one day.

QUOTE]

Closing rivers? Bad idea. Poachers would still get out and do what they do. To many people fish. Bottom line. Hatchery steelhead and salmon = table fare. Without hatcheries we wouldn't be eating fish. Your whole outlook, may be refreshing and hopeful, but is a total pipe dream for this day and age.

[Covelo]

I agree that the government wouldn't put funding where I wish they would because they have sport, tribal, and commercial pressures, all of who want fish, regardless of whether it is hatchery or wild. Many seem very against the idea of facing closed rivers, but I'd personally rather see all fishing closed on a river for 20 or 30 years with realistic hope of a sustainable wild population at some point, rather than getting to keep fishing even though it is for hatchery fish. Closing rivers is not such a bad thing IMHO, who knows maybe Papermill Creek will have healthy stocks of wild coho and steelhead for my children to fish for one day.

Again you seem to be under the illusion that over fishing by sports has somehow caused the declines in these fisheries and that all we need to do is limit take. This is a false presumption. If this was the case then several of our rivers should be teeming with wild steelhead as they have had C&R regs in place for over a decade (decades in some OR rivers). You can keep waiting but these rivers will not ever come back unless they improve the habitat and flows, and stop implementing unsound policies, such as introducing hatchery fish in un-dammed systems.

As Nailknot pointed out, less fit hatchery genes would be greatly diminished from the population once hatchery introductions were halted. It makes no sense to risk healthy wild stocks on rivers such as the Smith with hatchery fish. This is especially true when the wild stocks are healthy and can sustain a controlled level of take, such as on the Smith.

[Darian]

Environmental/habitat degradation are the main causes of decline in these fisheries. Too many to name here.

In principal, I'm in agreement with removal of hatcheries and with the idea that given ideal conditions, naturally spawning Salmon/Steelhead could recover. However, there is little enthusiasm for removal of hatcheries in federal or state agencies and where is the money going to come from to accomplish this task :question: The last I heard, the fed's/state are in deficit spending modes to the tune of billions of dollars. :confused:

I agree completely with Covelo that poor policy choices in where/when to stock hatchery fish have contributed to the current situation but don't see that changing anytime soon either. :neutral:

IMHO, until the current water situation is resolved in this state, there will be little interest in stopping hatchery production of Salmon/Steelhead. Unfortunately, there are two major issues that the new Guv is faced with resolving (budget and water) before going on to any of the others. 8)

[Mike O]

Okay I'm braced! I still believe that habitat degradation has a significantly greater impact on salmonid sustainability than fly fishermen.

And where did some of that habitat degredation come from? Clear cutting done by Private Timber companies on private land. Private companies are not better than the government, they just suck differently. The bottom line comes before the habitat.

[mikel]

Small groups of motivated individuals can have an impact on a river by river basis.

Look at the reg changes on Putah Creek. The Putah Creek Association, run off of Greg Bono's BB, made that happen ON THEIR OWN.

If the individuals up on the Trinity hadn't fought for their river decades ago after the dams were built, no one would be whining about only catching 1 fish per day. There wouldn't be fish or fishermen there at all.

The Kings River Conservancy has turned the lower sections of the river around with habitat, regulations, minimum flows and increased DFG presence.

Small groups in So Cal are banding together to provide volunteer enforcement of the regulations on their waters and doing so after training by the authorities.

so....if you live on a water and want the situation to change, there's a course of action that can work and is working in other places.

My daughters have taught me the mantra for environmentalists...Think global, act local...pronouncements about the state of the union and why big business is or isn't successful have nothing to do with the fishing on your home water.

Do you want hatchery fish or not? It SHOULD be a question asked about each water individually and acted upon by committed locals if anything is going to change....and that is regardless of statewide politics or policy.

[Covelo]

Do you want hatchery fish or not? It SHOULD be a question asked about each water individually and acted upon by committed locals if anything is going to change....and that is regardless of statewide politics or policy.

Not necessarily. If the science continues to build showing a negative impact of hatchery stocks on wild stocks, look for groups to start court actions to stop hatcheries from releasing hatchery fish into streams with ESA listed runs. In these cases, state and local policies and politics will not matter. Neither will the will of the populace unless they want to throw out the ESA.

[Mike O]

Small groups of motivated individuals can have an impact on a river by river basis.

Look at the reg changes on Putah Creek. The Putah Creek Association, run off of Greg Bono's BB, made that happen ON THEIR OWN.

.

Although I would not call what happened there an improvement by any means. It just closed the river to a lot of people.

[Darian]

mikel,.... I agree with your thought that a small group of individuals can impact their home waters in a positive way. However, for the most part it will be on a small/local scale. 8)

I'm not sure your characterization of what has transpired on the Trinity River over the last 60 years can be attributed to "individuals". That took the efforts of Trinity County government, Tribal and environmental NGO's, millions of dollars and litigation which is still ongoing to approach what is in place today. As has already been proven, the scale of issues involving valley rivers will not be resolved thru the efforts of a small group of locals. :neutral:

Don't fool yourself. With the monied/political (federal/state) interests involved, do you really believe that a small number of locals can/will affect the outcome of water issues impacting this state :question: Until budget/water issues are resolved and the economic climate is improved, I'm thinking that not much else is going to get done. Unless new litigation forces it. :neutral:

[Loren E]

Again you seem to be under the illusion that over fishing by sports has somehow caused the declines in these fisheries and that all we need to do is limit take. This is a false presumption. If this was the case then several of our rivers should be teeming with wild steelhead as they have had C&R regs in place for over a decade (decades in some OR rivers). You can keep waiting but these rivers will not ever come back unless they improve the habitat and flows, and stop implementing unsound policies, such as introducing hatchery fish in un-dammed systems. .

We're on the same page here, of course I realize the far greater impact of environmental degredation over sport fishing take, especially in this case (although I do think in some instances sport impact is often greatly underplayed "because commercial guys take so much more", but that is a different thread), I was just trying to respond to the multiple posts that suggested that the stopping of hatcheries would lead to the closing of sport fishing (which it likely would I think) as if that was the very end of the world, which I disagree with, as we have to think long-run with these issues and not doing so is often the problem. Bottom line though..yes, of course, the environmental issues of erosion, water diversion, damming, etc play by far the greatest role in the health of these fish stocks....the dams of California rivers were certainly the cause of the demise of our strong wild populations of salmon and steelhead.

[NightMuffin]

Central Valley hatcheries on the Sac as including the feather have not decreased production of Chinook or Steelhead.

[mikel]

Mao...you may not like the special regs on Putah, but those guys reacted to their "no stocking" situation and got something done. Right or wrong they took action and got it done.

Darian...I'm sure there were more than a few individuals or small groups invlved on the Trin over the decades...having said that I'd wager that you or others on this board can name the names of the individuals and small groups that DID have an impact there, especially in the early years after the dams were built. The Trinity didn't recover because the government or some huge bureacracy decided the poor little steelies needed a minimum flow to live.

You ask "do you really believe that a small number of locals can/will affect the outcome of water issues impacting this state?" and I believe the answer is yes...and here's why...

One thing I learned in business is that sometimes you have to do the impossible and solve unsolvable problems. If you take on the huge issue all at once, head on, you are doomed to failure. The way to solve unsolvable problems is one piece at a time, one small victory after another. Just take a little piece and solve it. If you do that enough times, eventually the initial problem becomes manageable.

If there were "Friends of the river" groups representing the Moke, Calaveras, each fork of the American and every other fishable watershed on the western Sierra and they were both active and smart as I believe the Putah group was, then I believe there could be progress.

Covelo...The lawsuit you envision would be the result of NOT taking action on a water by water basis in the 1st place. If we were already doing that instead of talking generically about hatchery vs wild at the 50,000 foot level there might not BE a lawsuit.

Hey, maybe I'm all wrong...what's happening now doesn't seem to be working out all that well...

[BillB]

If I'm not mistaken the Kings River Restoration project was/is done by a relatively small group of people. Granted it is not influenced by the politics of anadromous fish. I do know that the project has be in operation for some time. JM probably has a wealth of information on this project. There are also special regs on almost all of the river up to and including the national park.

[Darian]

OK, I realize that small groups have been affective on small projects. A step in the right direction.

However, most of the projects that have been successful are sponsored by organizations such as CSBA, CalTrout and Trout unlimited, etc. Too many NGO's to mention here. Personally, I don't recall and can't find any record of any individuals involved in the Trinity River solution which may not yet be complete. Mikel, If you choose you could check out the Trinity to get a decent history of the Trinity battles:

www.trinitycounty.org

You're really in denial if you think the Delta and related water issues (which involve ongoing diversions the Trinity River) will be solved by a few outsider individuals. For example, we are unable to undo legitimate property purchases involving riparian habitat by water agencies like Westlands by getting a few of the guys together and bitching about it :?: It's gonna take more than that....

At any rate, I've wasted too many words trying to get this point across and I'm done with this thread. :|

[Nailknot]

Loren E, here is a link with much information.
http://nativefishsociety.org/?page_id=201

The comprehensive recent study w conclusions about negative hatchery/wild interactions was conducted on the Hood River in OR.

[Dustin Revel]

IMHO, negative impacts of habitat degradation due to human activities isn't hard to recognize but since fly fisherman are part of human activities and we carry out many more activities that're not related to fly fishing, we contribute to degradation, as much as anyone else (direct and/or indirect). :nod:


while our mere existence does have negative impacts on habitat, there is much more to it than that.
People need to start thinking about where they exist. the choices we make on a daily basis (including where we set up camp, get our food/water) can greatly decrease or impact. most of california is not suitable for dense human population and at some point mother nature will make us very aware of that... the ironic part is that the most dense areas are the least suited for humans. It is very interesting that the most dense native American populations lived in some of the most rural parts of what is now ca, while the most heavily populated parts of ca today are almost historically void of native population.

Ultimately what i'm getting at is fisherman should be more conscious than your average joe and hopefully this influences their decision making process.

[Covelo]

while our mere existence does have negative impacts on habitat, there is much more to it than that.
People need to start thinking about where they exist. the choices we make on a daily basis (including where we set up camp, get our food/water) can greatly decrease or impact. most of california is not suitable for dense human population and at some point mother nature will make us very aware of that... the ironic part is that the most dense areas are the least suited for humans. It is very interesting that the most dense native American populations lived in some of the most rural parts of what is now ca, while the most heavily populated parts of ca today are almost historically void of native population.

Ultimately what i'm getting at is fisherman should be more conscious than your average joe and hopefully this influences their decision making process.

Call me a pessimist or a realist, but I do not see it happening. Our economy is tied to population growth. Until we get a handle on population growth, everything we do to conserve is just a band-aid. Imagine the impacts when you have to feed and provide water for another million or 10 million people in this state. We often post about conservation issues here but these are typically for incremental short term gains. Sometimes they are significant in our narrow view but we need a complete societal overhaul to save anything, even ourselves, in the long term. Maybe this is what you are referring to Dustin, but I do not see any evidence that it is going to occur. Most of the time it appears we (the human race) are singing merrily or squabbling about trivialities as the ship is slowly going down.

[Jgoding]

Totally agree with Covelo on this one. Until we look at our population growth we're a doomed species or I should say most other species are doomed. Can't just keep cramming more and more of us in any given area and expect everything to work out. Not that we can say where you can live etc.... but obviously the more people coming our way makes the situation more difficult. I saw an article on tigers, they'll be gone in my lifetime and in short order too (wild ones anyway) unless we do something about it. Sickens me at what bs $$ drives and what we do to such magnificent animals. I just don't see why we can't draw that line where poaching an animal into extinction is not acceptable behavior and attach the consequences that we need to, to the activities that fuel the behavior.

[Dustin Revel]

the ship will eventually right itself... are we due for a plague or what?

[Bill Kiene semi-retired]

When I was in high school in the 1960s they had us read two books on population growth.

"The Population Bomb" was one of them:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Population_Bomb