Natural or Hatchery Bred....

[Darian]

OK!!! I chose to post this under the Salmon/Steelhead Forum to get maximum affect. It could've just as easily gone into the Trout Forum but the result wouldn't have been anywhere near as interesting.

Before I finish the balance of this post, I must confess that I'm trolling to stir things up but, here it comes, this troll is based on an article that appears in the latest issue of American Angler magazine and might be applied to Salmon/Steelhead as well.

On page 51, there's an article about upper mid-west trout fishing titled, "The Holdovers." On the last page of this article is a discussion box in which the author tries to make the case that, "....hatchery-raised, stocked trout have virtually no impact on wild fish."This based on a recent study conducted by the Idaho Game and Fish agency. Some points from that study:


"Stocked waters showed no difference in abundance, growth rates, or survival than those in unstocked streams."
"Stocked trout have high mortality rates.... They just don't last long enough to have much of an impact."


The author also cites a study conducted by a biologist at Washington & Lee University that examined genetic makeup of trout in 3 streams that have both hatchery and naturally reproducing Brook Trout in them. The professor said, "Of the 98 fish tested, only 4 showed genetic mixing." The trout tested came from streams that have been stocked for 20 years.

Controversial???? Maybe. It does seem to fly in the face of a lot of other recently developed info.... :confused:

SOooo,.... En garde!!!! :p :cool:

[JasonB]

OK!!! I chose to post this under the Salmon/Steelhead Forum to get maximum affect. It could've just as easily gone into the Trout Forum but the result wouldn't have been anywhere near as interesting.

Before I finish the balance of this post, I must confess that I'm trolling to stir things up but, here it comes, this troll is based on an article that appears in the latest issue of American Angler magazine and might be applied to Salmon/Steelhead as well.


What, the steelhead forum too civil and calm lately for ya? You could try and post this in late March or early April for some really entertaining results... likely to be quite a few disgruntled steelheaders at that time...
JB

[Larry S]

Darian,
Lots of studies; such as http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/06/090610091224.htm
As an aside, one of my favorite stories is of the efforts by the Mattole River project. Haven't checked
on their progress lately.
Best,
Larry S

[rippinstreamers]

Darian, nobody is taking the bait, lets hear your take. How do brown trout in the fit into this, and is this only for the u.s., how do we explain new Zealand?

[Darian]

I guess this subject has been discussed in the past whether in a civil manner or not. ;)

Not sure about the New Zealand reference???? Clarification please???

Thinking out loud, here.... I don't think this new information is going to change the opinion of most anyone on this BB. As for me, I found it interesting to note that the new study concluded that impacts of stocking hatchery reared Brook/Rainbow trout was seen as insignificant. In addition, I'm wondering how this new info applies to anadromous fish??? It conflicts with the conclusions arrived at in the Oregon State study (link provided by Larry S). I'm a bit confused by these differences as Rainbow and Steelhead Trout are, apparently, genetically indistinguishable. So why differing results/conclusions based on studies involving the same species; habitat, geography, study design, prejudice, resources, funding???? IMO, these studies all seem to have a narrow focus. Maybe they're both right. :confused:

That said, the new info has probably has already been taken into account by our own F&W people. whether I believe they're good at what they do or not, they're still better informed/trained on this than I am.

At any rate, until someone can tell me with more certainty than our current estimates how many naturally spawning Salmon, Sea Run Cutthroat and Steelhead are left in each river/stream in CA, I'm not going to vote for shutting down hatchery operations. In the back of my mind, I can't help thinking that most natural populations are so low that they're either close to being or no longer viable, yet, are still being pounded by commercial/recreational fisherman.

The people who conduct these type studies probably have an overall view of environmental concerns involved but may not be allowed to or be interested in addressing them in completion of same. Stocking programs are dependent on facilities usually located at the base of dams. These dams and hatcheries represent a substantial investment on the part of governmental/private agencies/operations. Their products and the employment they provide have substantial value as well. Without stocking programs, we'd all be fishing Carp, Squawfish or other warm water species. So, I don't see any of it going away anytime soon whether I agree with all of the new info or not. ;)

[JasonB]

At any rate, until someone can tell me with more certainty than our current estimates how many naturally spawning Salmon, Sea Run Cutthroat and Steelhead are left in each river/stream in CA, I'm not going to vote for shutting down hatchery operations. In the back of my mind, I can't help thinking that most natural populations are so low that they're no longer viable, yet, are still being pounded by commercial/recreational fisherman.


Ok I'll comment on that little bit. First off, I honestly have no real scientific knowledge to say for sure the precise impacts that hatchery salmon and steelhead have on wild populations. I kinda doubt that most anglers do when push comes to shove, and I even have my doubts about just how solid or conclusive the scientific data on the subject may be. It's pretty complex to say the least. Furthermore while rainbow trout and steelhead may be genetically identical, they are hardly the same animal when you think about them from a life cycle perspective... not even all that similar really.

The sticky part of all this is that the hatcheries "insulate" the low populations of salmon and steelhead, in both positive and negative ways. For one thing, it is entirely likely that without them a lot of fisheries would have far more restrictions/closures if there were only wild anadromous fish (this could be viewed as a good thing and a bad thing). In fact it they may even be partly responsible for helping to drag out the "harvest" mentality that is changing much too slowly imo. The other side of the coin is that where fishing is allowed we can hope that more of that impact is absorbed by the hatchery fish, rather than being focused directly on the wild population. Of course if the numbers weren't as high, would there be as many people out fishing for them? If there were less people fishing for them, would there be as much passion and concern over their status...Etc, etc, etc.

I'm hesitant to rush to eliminate hatchery programs outright, but on the other hand I think that it is kind of masking real problems. I also don't think that hatchery fish are any solution, so in the mean time I think you could argue it both ways. They are probably doing some very minor and temporary good, and also likely some insidious harm right alongside it. I wish it were as simple as just throwing money at the problem, or just pulling all hatcheries and saying catch and release only; but I don't think it's nearly that simple.
JB

[winxp_man]

I tasted wild and hatchery and both tast and feel the same ;)

I would go as far as saying even the molecule composition is the same. The fiber of the muscle tissue seems just a little and I mean very little tougher on the wild fish. As for the battle on the rod end well they both seem equally fair and have had some wild that were harder on the rod and could say the same about the hatchery that some were also hard fighters. But all in all its hard to tell much difference because all are worth catching when they are in a fight for there life :D

This is of course talking about trout.....

[shawn kempkes]

You need to look no further than the Elwha river in Washington. To say that wild river born rainbows are important in the life cycle of steelhead. Last year was the first year in over a hundred years that Adult winter steelhead had access to some of the streams above the lower dam. They have documented small river born rainbows spawning with the wild steelhead that have returned.

There are several studies that show why hatchery fish are bad. Th
stopped planting Skamania strain summer steelhead in both the Wind and the Clackamas rivers and the wild populations have grown exponentially. I have linked several studies for you to read and a cool video of a rainbow spawning with steelhead.

http://www.fishsciences.net/reports/Transactions/Tr_135_p825-41_Effect_introduced_sum_sthd_hatchery_stock_on_pr oduction_wild_winter_sthd_pop.pdf


http://nativefishsociety.org/wp-content/uploads/Chilcote-et-al-2011-h-w-reduced-recruitment.pdf

http://scholarsarchive.library.oregonstate.edu/xmlui/bitstream/handle/1957/34708/McMilloanJohnRFisheriesWildlifeIndividualCondition Stream.pdf?sequence=1

http://w.wildsalmoncenter.org/pdf/rainbow_trout_mcmillan_etal_2007.pdf


http://www.opb.org/programs/ofg/segments/view/1697

[rippinstreamers]

sorry for the short reply, I wanted something to read tonight and didnt have much time to elaborate earlier. What I meant by New Zealand is that their fishery is solely based on planters am I wrong? now I have no idea the rate at which they first introduced the species, but it seems like they are holding over just fine now and they are quite the specimens as well. I just wanted to use them as an example and maybe the south america, seems like in certain applications hatchery fish have positive impacts(for sport fishing). Now the whole steelhead side of the arguement is a tough one, again maybe good in certain applications but not all. I also think the rate or amount of planting could probably be adjusted. Just curious on what would happen to fisheries like the mad or russian where most of their steelhead caught are hatchery fish? if the hatcheries went bye-bye, would they be fished out, would the wild fish make a come back, is it too late, would people likely put less pressure on these fisheries?

[Darian]

Shawn,.... Thanks for those links. In considering conditions on the Elwha River, it appears that, given the identical genetic make-up of all rainbows/steelhead, that the success is due to an immediate increase in the numbers of natural spawning adult fish made available thru an increase in access to additional spawning habitat. That seems to be a good thing. While you didn't say so, I'm assuming that the resident rainbows in the Elwha were not stocked. Would you say that returning steelhead would pair with stocked residents at the same rate as they would with natural fish???? If so, wouldn't that result in genetic mixing and be a negative result even if the numbers were increased??? Pure speculation on my part....

Rippin'.... As I recall that the Rainbows in New Zealand were steelhead coming from one of the rivers along the coast. Can't recall which and whether there was more than one or whether those fish were naturally spawning or hatchery reared. As I understand the objections to hatchery spawned fish is not their longevity but they compete for food and space, potential for genetic mixing, etc. Since the fish first stocked in New Zealand/South America were non-native and the first generation, none of those issues appears to apply. Those fish either made it or not based on their ability to survive. Don't know how Browns made it down there or where they came from. The positives you mentioned are evident to anyone living down there and making their living from those fisheries. Plus, New Zealand has policies in place to attract travelers for potential revenues. So, in this instance, you're correct that stocked fish can have great economic impact.

Jason,.... I'm curious about this one: "....while rainbow trout and steelhead may be genetically identical, they are hardly the same animal when you think about them from a life cycle perspective... not even all that similar really." Let's compare what we know about rainbows/steelhead:

They appear identical, physically.

They easily interbreed.

Spawning/use requirements (technique and spaces) are the same.

Genetically, they're the same (not considering biological taxa here).

Anadromy(??) appears to be a choice (I seem to recall reading that some rainbows migrate and some don't, even from the same watershed).

Water requirements are similar.

Spawning occurs during the same overall time period (regardless of when they enter rivers/streams).

They eat the same food (depending on where they are at the time).

IMO, The bright appearance of a salmon/steelhead that has recently entered a river/stream is more a condition brought about by living in the salt water environment and the type food available there. I do agree that steelhead are magnificent and that I'd rather catch one of them than a typical resident rainbow, but I'm not sure that there's that many real differences between the two.

Thanks for the observations and info, guys. Good stuff so far.... :cool:

[JasonB]

Jason,.... I'm curious about this one: "....while rainbow trout and steelhead may be genetically identical, they are hardly the same animal when you think about them from a life cycle perspective... not even all that similar really." Let's compare what we know about rainbows/steelhead:

They appear identical, physically.

They easily interbreed.

Spawning/use requirements (technique and spaces) are the same.

Genetically, they're the same (not considering biological taxa here).

Anadromy(??) appears to be a choice (I seem to recall reading that some rainbows migrate and some don't, even from the same watershed).

Water requirements are similar.

Spawning occurs during the same overall time period (regardless of when they enter rivers/streams).

They eat the same food (depending on where they are at the time).

IMO, The bright appearance of a salmon/steelhead that has recently entered a river/stream is more a condition brought about by living in the salt water environment and the type food available there. I do agree that steelhead are magnificent and that I'd rather catch one of them than a typical resident rainbow, but I'm not sure that there's that many real differences between the two.

Thanks for the observations and info, guys. Good stuff so far.... :cool:

Darian,
Agreed on all that. My point was that I don't think that you can assume that the effects of hatchery fish on wild populations would be identical between rainbows and steelhead. Given that one of them is a resident in a very small area, and the other ventures back and forth from stream to sea. The habitat issues in stream are very much the same, but the habitat issues out at sea are a whole other set of concerns as well.
JB

[Darian]

I'm having mixed feelings about this one (anadromy/choice of habitat), too. True, that choosing to migrate to the salt and what happens to them there represents a difference between the two having external, physical impacts. When I mentioned that anadromy was a choice, I was thinking that the choice of habitat (salty or fresh water) did change them but the changes improved their physical size and conditioning (flesh color and stamina) due to the difference in the type of food but after adjusting, both rainbows/steelhead can tolerate salt water.

It'd be interesting to find out if all steelhead actually migrate each year after the first year in the salt or do some fish choose not to migrate year after year (assuming no physical blockage to migration)???

Back to the original question. Are the conclusions in the recent Idaho study about negative impacts of stocked fish on naturally spawned fish being overstated, correct??? As I said earlier in this discussion, I don't know.... Maybe they're both right. Got a lot more reading to do.... :cool:

[Walter]

The mere presence of hatchery fish is competition for wild fish. If hatcheries are to be maintained than best available science should be used to make their goal to aid wild fish recovery, and not just to provide catchable fish. The current goal of hatchery programs is maintaining put and take fisheries. This behavior has been show to a statistically significant level, that hatchery trout and steelhead are basically "a cancer to the genetic survival of wild fish."

[Darian]

So, Walter.... I take it that you do not accept the conclusions in the recent Idaho study that says that there're some negative impacts on naturally spawned fish by stocking hatchery reared fish but that those impacts are overstated. That genetic mixing is not extensive and that stocked fish do not remain in waters where they're introduced long enough to become a major competitor. Since the Idaho study is a recent one, it would seem to be the best available science.

I guess knowing the study authors definition of what constitutes a significant negative impact might help. The people who conducted the Idaho study didn't think that stocked fish had significant negative impacts on naturally spawning fish.

To me, the studies mentioned in the article was focusing on resident brook/rainbow trout. No Salmon/Steelhead were included. Hence the discussion about the differences/similarities between resident rainbows and steelhead in order to find out if there is any application here. :confused:

[Walter]

I can imagine an Idaho DFG sponsored study on hatchery fish is like one Phillip Morris does on nicotine saying that its harmless.

The Oregon Study is probably more objective, I'll read the Idaho one when I get a chance.

[lee s.]

I understand the hatchery/native, oops!, wild conflict. It really bugs the poop out of me and shows some assininity when someone makes a blanket statement or opinion. Here on the Russian we have virtually no wild trout, hence no wild steelhead. It is my belief that we do have many unclipped hatchery fish to augment the 13 wild fish left in the system. Sarcasim intended, accuracy not.
Point being, without the hatchery we would have NO steelhead fishery left due to the enviriomental changes allowed to prevail in our watershed.....which WILL continue due to economics....period.
Now I DO know there is VERY little competition between hathery steelhead and wild fish here unless the wild fish are feeding on pellets in the raceways too. Once a fish is released it MUST move hell-bent for the salt, as our river envirioment is LETHAL to salmonoids. Temps too high in summer due to water robbing....bugs dead too? Chemical polution due to vineyard run-off.....bugs dead too. No (damn few) wild spawn due to 18-21 days if silt instead of the customary (historic?) 7-10 days silt due to vineyard run-off and damn dam controls....again, dead bugs? And the fish will starve because of no (damn few!) bugs. We WILL lose this fishery without hatchery intrusion. We WILL lose our wild fish, hatchery or not, C/R or C/kill or not. We WILL NOT restore the envirioment....we WILL NOT restore the fishery. And I DO NOT mean "restore" the fishery/envirioment with stick and rock replacement....I mean restore by changing the water BACK to CLEAN, COLD, and PURE.
IF you have a self-sustaining resource and viable fishery, be damn sure you treasure it and let NO one get their fingers detrimentally into it! I also DO believe that we CANNOT impact such a fishery with a stick and a string.....especially when the occupants of said fishery are not actively feeding at our time to pester them.
Obviously it is the place you speak of that determines the proper use of "concrete" streams.
....lee s.

[jbird]

OK darnit! I was gonna stay away from this one, but im bored :)

The data Ive read that made the biggest impact on me regarding the downside of man made fish, is the weakness therein. From embryo to fingerling is a very trying period of a wild fishes life. This is where the weaker are more likely to be removed from the gene pool. Hatchery fish spend this critical age in a pool being fed til their heart's content. No predators, floods, droughts etc... to wipe them out. In simple terms, hatcheries are breeding lazy fish. Back-o-the pack fish. The will to survive is a deep genetic imprint that is instinctive in wild fish and tested to the hilt at this fragile age.
Now you get a few disoriented, horny hatchery fish sharing sheets with native fish and the gene pool loses that native vigor. that wild ability to survive come hell or high water. The offspring of such encounters breeds half-breeds. And the scenario snowballs as it continues over generations. the result is there arent any wild fish left. Even fish that are non clipped and breeding in the wild can be nearly 100% non native. At which point the watershed is relying on hatcheries 100%

These studies were anadromous specific and may very well not apply to resident trout as they do not face the same survival challanges.

[Walter]

Excellent summary jbird. And you are correct. The Oregon Studies show the half breed fish have the same "spawning success rate" as pure hatchery fish. That is the dilution of the genepool.

And Lee, your points are well taken. Isn't there the potential for resource competition at sea even between hatchery salmonids and wild fish? As DFG is actively planting adult hatchery fish in the Russian tribs, it will be hard to determine what is really wild. And they maintian the good genetic profile of those fish, but according to the Oregon Studies, they are diminishing the genepool even further.

[Darian]

I'm not sure that the Idaho study would differ in recognizing that hatchery reared fish spawning with naturally bred fish contributes to dilution of the gene pool. It says that the rate of successful spawning between the two is overstated as hatchery reared fish tend to remain in rivers/streams for a short period of time. I do agree that there're some differences between the challenges that resident rainbows, whether hatchery bred or not, face and those that steelhead survive over the course of their lives.

The durability (if you will) of hatchery bred fish is not really at issue here as everyone agrees that they are not the equal of naturally spawned fish. Hatchery fish are the direct product of in-breeding, albeit with infusion of wild eggs/milt on occasion. Their lack of durability does lend some credibility to the idea that the impacts of stocking hatchery fish on natural stocks are overstated and insignificant as they're not in the system long enough to have major impact. I'm wondering is how many genetically pure, naturally spawning rainbows/steelhead actually remain in California rivers/streams; given all of the hatchery bred/reared fish are released each year??? Are we even able to determine that any longer. For some isolated populations, maybe but in the valley or places like the Russian River, CA??? I doubt it....

IMO, the problem is that each study focused on one type of the same fish (rainbows/steelhead) and arrived at conclusions that tend to contradict each other. Which is correct??? As I've said before, maybe both are. Maybe they only apply in the geographical area where they were conducted.... :confused:

LeeS made a couple of very good observations about the difference between where these studies were undertaken/completed and conditions in California. For example, the Russian River was one of the premier salmon/steelhead rivers in NorCal up thru the 60's. Over time, a combination of factors (e.g. development {agricultural/community}, water diversion, placement of summer dams, and construction of Dams for Lakes Mendocino and Sonoma) have taken their toll.

Undoubtedly, there are fish that still spawn, naturally, in smaller tributaries of the Russian but I'd bet those fish are a product of hatchery bred and naturally spawned fish. With the hatchery at Warm Springs producing more pen reared fish, annually, the rate of mixing of the two types has continued and will continue until all fish in the system are a product of that cross and none of the genetically pure, naturally spawning fish remain. Sadly, the conditions described are what is left in many California rivers/streams; especially in Sacto/San Joaquin Valley rivers. So, without hatcheries, many rivers/streams would have very few Salmon/Steelhead to fish for.

I'd bet that if either of those studies had been conducted in this state, the result would've done nothing but confirm that hatcheries are necessary for maintaining a fishery as mitigation, here. :(

[Walter]

Darian,
When was the last time you even got out and fished for a trout or a steelhead? Some of the best rivers for quality fish dont even have hatcheries, for steelhead or trout.

Hatcheries dont just maintain something to catch, they destroy wild fish survivability and make the ignorant and naieve think they are dependent on those hatcheries just to catch fish.

It doesn't matter what state you are in.

I can see the scenario where a small SoCal creek looses (most of)its fish and its population can be restored with a yet unseen wild fish broodstock rearing pools as well as hatchery supplimentation but other than that hatcheries give the massive populous a fish to whack and roe for bait to use to catch more fish.

[lee s.]

Diminished genes pool is the price we are paying for allowing our steelhead envirioment to be trashed here. And wild fish they may be, but native......no. As we allow Sonoma County Water Agency to determine the water useage of our water shed (and apparently the Eel's), we WILL lose even these "wild" fish, as they WILL trash ALL of our steelhead envirioment. The ONLY water valuable to them is in a pipe and for sale! They even steal water from the REAL king salmon in the Eel River to water our phony king salmon in the Russian. We do deserve what we allow. Plant northerns, I say....they seem much more tolerant of poop and they will thin the squawfish. ;-)
Competition at sea.....? When we eliminate the predator, the vermin abound. It is our duty to keep our predator numbers UP or we will be over-run by herring type fishes, squids and shrimps, to name a few. And we are not even close to historic salmanoid (predator) numbers. It is also our duty to control THE predator. As we have eliminated the Grizzly, we MUST harvest his portion of salmanoids, or again, be over-run. ;-)
.....lee s.

[lee s.]

As a PS,
We DO have a small supply of native steelhead. Those that are land-locked behind Warm Springs dam. They do not plant trout there, and there is a somewhat self-sustaining population of trout/steelhead in the lake....spawning up Dry Creek and Warm Springs tribs. AND the powers that be allow harvesting 5 per day of these fish and NONE of their "wild" cousins.....go figure.
The biggest reason for a hatchery is so the capitalist bas--rds can continue to rape the envirioment. Without envirioment restoration, NATIVE fish are doomed. Man will continue to intrude....it is OUR nature.

[shawn kempkes]

Lee

before you completely write off the Wild steelhead in the russian. Sonoma state did a genetic study on the Steelhead and found at least 15 distinct populations of wild steelhead. The best thing that the dfg could do on the Russian is drastically cut back on the number of smolts that are being planted in the river or start doing some scatter planting so that they all dont run to the hatchery traps and they dont truck them down river. Also they Should be sued to stop planting hatchery adults where wild fish spawn.

[lee s.]

shawn,
Sorry, I am built to run logic and the record of what I have seen done REPEATEDLY and am FINALLY learning to accept what I cannot change. Like I said, Russian River water is LETHAL to salmonoids (by their own studies?). Read the signage at the hatchery. They admit to trying to modify the fish, genetically, to be temp tolerant and anti-fungal. Oh yeah......GMO steelhead by man, NOT nature. Change the fish.....NOT the water!
I would certainly like to see the results of this study and see if they followed the #'s for at least a decade and when this study was done and how long they expect before the fish are ALL gone. Nature will continue to fill her niche. When the niches are gone, so too will be the occupants. Too bad man will not learn. The lessons of the Russian R's watershed will not be used on other rivers, except the lessons of degrade slowly.....so the frog doesn't jump out....or make too much noise. The lesson of draw the line at someplace good and KEEP them out (Pebble Mine anyone?) will be lost. We will still put rocks and sticks back into our polluted water and let ourselves feel good about our efforts. Who should be sued to stop, are the (right now) vineyards and SCWA....later it will be someone else.
....lee s.
PS - I was just thinking. Right here we are steelhead users outraged at enviriomental degradation concerning OUR interests. On Dan's board, the striper users are outraged at the destruction of the enviriomental needs of THEIR pets. On a Shasta L. useage, our friends lament the loss of their fisheries due to restricted funding (= no planting) and mine pollution. Then we split our forces even further by dividing the FF'ers from the gear fishers from the bait fishers, yata yata. Divide and conquer ring any bells.

[JasonB]

Lee,
I can't say I disagree with any of your points and sentiments. I do think that the tone of your posts is kind of self defeating though. Perhaps there is no justification whatsoever for optimism, but without a positive attitude towards what might be productive steps in the right general direction we stand NO chance of anything. I can understand why it may seem daunting and hopeless, but I'm happy that there are some who are still willing and able to put quite a lot of good efforts towards improving the situation and I think we should all be as positive and supportive as possible to any attempts towards improvement. I choose to run on a hopeful if not always optimistic outlook; otherwise I'd never go through the trouble to trying to catch one of these "ghosts" anyways...
JB

[Darian]

Lee,.... Can't disagree with your overall position. Divide and conquer may be an indication of collective attn' deficit disorder in humans. Most everyone migrates to the cause du jour until something else attracts their attention, so on and so on.... ;) I share your feelings about vineyards over there. Nothing is more sterile than the ground beneath rows of wine grapes and dirt roadways probably don't dump as much silt into rivers/streams, either.... Aaarrrgh!!! :mad:

Shawn,.... 15 separate strains??? I wouldn't have guessed that there was that many genetically pure, naturally spawning steelhead in the Russian, at all. Are the steelhead you mention sampled from Austin Creek, for example??? I looked on the Sonoma State website for the study you cited and found several but not the one that established the 15 distinct steelhead strains. Could you direct me to it??? Thanks. :cool:

[lee s.]

Jason,
I agree whole-heartedly and do so much appreciate those carrying the ball. My point of view comes from someone who is finally in the twilight of their existence expressed on a recource that, in some locals, is also in the twilight of it's existense. Those short of time need EFFECTIVE measures executed. We do not install a couch into a lethally smoke filled room.....we FIRST remove the smoke.
I DO support and am a member of several clubs that do support and perform such projects. However we may also be one of their biggest pains in the arse as we ask "why are we carrying the couch, instead of removing the smoke?". If one's area is lucky enough to have clean enough water....carry the couch and close it off to detrimental intrusion. If like at the Russian R., our air (water) is filled with smoke (pollution), DROP the danged couch, and MAKE them restore clean, cold air (water). We DO need focus! Until the lethal barrier, the Russian River, is fixed, all else is moot. Yes, we WILL help carry the couch, but rest assured, our expressed (or not) priorities are with the air. We can live on a lumpy couch....we cannot live with too much smoke in the air.
I do applaud those of grand patience and long view. It is much more useful than our view of now, it seems. ;-)
....lee s.

[Darian]

Walter,.... For a lot of personal reasons and those cited by Lee, I haven't fished steelhead for many years and don't really anticipate doing so in the near future.

I'm not sure that I agree with your statement that it doesn't matter which state you're in. IMO, It does matter what state you're in. For more reasons than I can list here, the current condition of the environment/habitat for salmon/steelhead/trout in this state is so much more degraded than that in other states to the northwest. Construction of the Bay-Delta Conservation Plan (BDCP) will add considerably to that degradation.

While I agree that there are some fine steelhead and trout fisheries in this state, there is not one major river here that doesn't have a hatchery, a dam, a hatchery and a dam or a hatchery and multiple dams on it. In more than a few places, a hatchery and dam are placed on tributaries in addition to those on the main rivers. If the BDCP is constructed, there will even be more dams/hatcheries/tunnels for diversion of water built. I'm getting far off topic here....

Jason,.... Believe it or not, I do maintain a healthy attitude about all of this even though it may appear otherwise at times. My major concern is that nobody seems to be working for an overall coordination of efforts to solve problems (e.g. approve, fund, design, plan, improve, support projects). Each entity involved in this appears to see themselves as an authority and are operating on their own, many times without consulting each other. I'm not giving up tho.... :cool:

[Fish Guru]

Walter,.... For a lot of personal reasons and those cited by Lee, I haven't fished steelhead for many years and don't really anticipate doing so in the near future.

I'm not sure that I agree with your statement that it doesn't matter which state you're in. IMO, It does matter what state you're in. For more reasons than I can list here, the current condition of the environment/habitat for salmon/steelhead/trout in this state is so much more degraded than that in other states to the northwest. Construction of the Bay-Delta Conservation Plan (BDCP) will add considerably to that degradation.

While I agree that there are some fine steelhead and trout fisheries in this state, there is not one major river here that doesn't have a hatchery, a dam, a hatchery and a dam or a hatchery and multiple dams on it. In more than a few places, a hatchery and dam are placed on tributaries in addition to those on the main rivers. If the BDCP is constructed, there will even be more dams/hatcheries/tunnels for diversion of water built. I'm getting far off topic here....

Jason,.... Believe it or not, I do maintain a healthy attitude about all of this even though it may appear otherwise at times. My major concern is that nobody seems to be working for an overall coordination of efforts to solve problems (e.g. approve, fund, design, plan, improve, support projects). Each entity involved in this appears to see themselves as an authority and are operating on their own, many times without consulting each other. I'm not giving up tho.... :cool:

There are no hatcheries on the Eel watershed, those steelhead and salmon are very wild!

[Darian]

Fish Guru,.... Granted there is no formal hatchery or fish rearing facility on the Eel. However, there is an egg taking station located, I believe, somewhere in the fish ladder (at the top???) of Cape Horn Dam (Van Arsdale??). Eggs taken from Salmon/Steelhead at that station are propogated/reared at the Mad River Hatchery and are distributed over several watersheds, including the Eel. I'm not sure there's much difference where the propogation/rearing takes place.

This quote is taken from a memo from, NOAA-NWSFC Tech Memo-27, status review of West Coast Steelhead - Artificial Propogation:

"8 Northern California--The primary steelhead hatchery within the range of this ESU is Mad River Hatchery, established in 1971 by CDFG for fisheries enhancement (McEwan and Jackson 1996). The Mad River Hatchery winter steelhead stock was founded with steelhead eggs from the Eel River (Van Arsdale Fisheries Station, see page 74) and the San Lorenzo River (Cramer et al. 1995; Will footnote 14). Returns of steelhead to Mad River Hatchery were sufficient to supply the hatchery's production needs by 1974 (Cramer et al. 1995). Van Arsdale Fisheries Station continues to transfer Eel River steelhead eggs to Mad River Hatchery for rearing and subsequent release into the Eel River (CDFG 1994). The migration and spawn timings of hatchery stocks in northern California have been truncated since hatchery operations began (Cramer et al. 1995). In addition, both Mad River Hatchery and Van Arsdale Fisheries Station release unsmolted steelhead (CDFG 1994), which have been shown to survive poorly to spawning age (Cramer et al. 1995).

Introduced Skamania-stock summer steelhead appear to be reproducing naturally in the Mad River (Cramer et al. 1995). An average of 96,000 juvenile steelhead of Van Arsdale Fisheries Station and Mad River Hatchery stock origins have been released annually into the Eel River Basin since 1970 (CDFG 1994). Approximately 233,000 juvenile steelhead of various stock origins are released annually into Mad River (CDFG 1994). All other basins in this area together receive about 75,000 steelhead per year (Cramer et al. 1995), for a total annual hatchery release of at least 404,000 steelhead within the range of the Northern California ESU (Fig. 13).

9) Central California Coast--Warm Springs Hatchery on the Russian River is currently the only major steelhead facility within the region occupied by this ESU; however, release records show that a substantial number of steelhead from Mad River Hatchery are released in this area (CDFG 1994) (Fig. 14). In the early part of the century, steelhead from the Scott Creek Hatchery, themselves a mix of various steelhead stocks from Oregon and Washington, were widely introduced throughout the smaller river basins in this area (Bryant 1994). Although few out-of-basin stocks have been transferred into Warm Springs Hatchery, Mad River Hatchery and Eel River steelhead have been introduced directly into the Russian River as recently as 1991, and many river and creek basins in this area periodically receive Mad River Hatchery steelhead (CDFG 1994). Since 1971, the Russian River has received about 140,000 fish per year of various stocks (CDFG 1994, Cramer et al. 1995). Release records for hatchery steelhead in other basins occupied by the Central California Coast ESU are incomplete and are not reported here." (Italics added)

The bulletin was written in the 1990's. So, not current. The entire bulletin contains some interesting info on how Skamania eggs/stock were distributed to the Eel and elsewhere after construction of a dam there many years ago. So, while it may be true that the fish in the Eel are wild, they're not genetically pure Eel river fish and many have been artificially spawned/reared.

[Walter]

Darian you dont know how much the skamania genes have proliferated. No one can say one eay or another without tons of scale samples for DNA. Nobody can say one way or another.

So in the absence of knowledge we should preserve the "wild" and feral genes that survive, and quit polluting them with scientifically proven-to-be inferior spawning partners(hatchery fish) and that resource competition.

In the case of a watersheds fish heading towards extinction. A top notch "hatchery" may be an option. But I dont see one anywhere on the Streams south of San Francisco where they might help. I see hatcheries in the middle of somewhat healthy fisheries, to generate what... liscence sales? Revenue thay doesnt even go to fishing. All they do is attract ruffian fisherman and the municipal hordes. Hatcheries are a way to justify part if DFW's annual budget. A way to justify their existance. DFW is a big part of the PROBLEM. DFW basically refuses to protect the crown jewel the Smith, through lack of enforcement, and appropriate and timely regulation changes.

If DFW cared about wild fish they would ban roe for bait. I can't tell you how many wild fish are killed for loose roe. No better bait than fresh loose steelhead roe. And if you didnt have these hatchery fish it would be easy to tell who is poaching fish for roe as bait.

I believe the Mattole is an artifical only river, and you can blatantly see people throwing roe all day long. And it ain't Mad River Hatchery bait.


And to those of you who don't fish. Take a walk outside sometimes, our states steelhead fishery is much healthier than you OR and WA moving folk might think. So go ahead and move, but dont give up on our state. It's worth protecting. You don't need taco truck hatchery clones to go have a phenominal day of Steelhead fishing.

[Fish Guru]

Fish Guru,.... Granted there is no formal hatchery or fish rearing facility on the Eel. However, there is an egg taking station located, I believe, somewhere in the fish ladder (at the top???) of Cape Horn Dam (Van Arsdale??). Eggs taken from Salmon/Steelhead at that station are propogated/reared at the Mad River Hatchery and are distributed over several watersheds, including the Eel. I'm not sure there's much difference where the propogation/rearing takes place.

This quote is taken from a memo from, NOAA-NWSFC Tech Memo-27, status review of West Coast Steelhead - Artificial Propogation:

"8 Northern California--The primary steelhead hatchery within the range of this ESU is Mad River Hatchery, established in 1971 by CDFG for fisheries enhancement (McEwan and Jackson 1996). The Mad River Hatchery winter steelhead stock was founded with steelhead eggs from the Eel River (Van Arsdale Fisheries Station, see page 74) and the San Lorenzo River (Cramer et al. 1995; Will footnote 14). Returns of steelhead to Mad River Hatchery were sufficient to supply the hatchery's production needs by 1974 (Cramer et al. 1995). Van Arsdale Fisheries Station continues to transfer Eel River steelhead eggs to Mad River Hatchery for rearing and subsequent release into the Eel River (CDFG 1994). The migration and spawn timings of hatchery stocks in northern California have been truncated since hatchery operations began (Cramer et al. 1995). In addition, both Mad River Hatchery and Van Arsdale Fisheries Station release unsmolted steelhead (CDFG 1994), which have been shown to survive poorly to spawning age (Cramer et al. 1995).

Introduced Skamania-stock summer steelhead appear to be reproducing naturally in the Mad River (Cramer et al. 1995). An average of 96,000 juvenile steelhead of Van Arsdale Fisheries Station and Mad River Hatchery stock origins have been released annually into the Eel River Basin since 1970 (CDFG 1994). Approximately 233,000 juvenile steelhead of various stock origins are released annually into Mad River (CDFG 1994). All other basins in this area together receive about 75,000 steelhead per year (Cramer et al. 1995), for a total annual hatchery release of at least 404,000 steelhead within the range of the Northern California ESU (Fig. 13).

9) Central California Coast--Warm Springs Hatchery on the Russian River is currently the only major steelhead facility within the region occupied by this ESU; however, release records show that a substantial number of steelhead from Mad River Hatchery are released in this area (CDFG 1994) (Fig. 14). In the early part of the century, steelhead from the Scott Creek Hatchery, themselves a mix of various steelhead stocks from Oregon and Washington, were widely introduced throughout the smaller river basins in this area (Bryant 1994). Although few out-of-basin stocks have been transferred into Warm Springs Hatchery, Mad River Hatchery and Eel River steelhead have been introduced directly into the Russian River as recently as 1991, and many river and creek basins in this area periodically receive Mad River Hatchery steelhead (CDFG 1994). Since 1971, the Russian River has received about 140,000 fish per year of various stocks (CDFG 1994, Cramer et al. 1995). Release records for hatchery steelhead in other basins occupied by the Central California Coast ESU are incomplete and are not reported here." (Italics added)

The bulletin was written in the 1990's. So, not current. The entire bulletin contains some interesting info on how Skamania eggs/stock were distributed to the Eel and elsewhere after construction of a dam there many years ago. So, while it may be true that the fish in the Eel are wild, they're not genetically pure Eel river fish and many have been artificially spawned/reared.

Darian I think that material is not current, to my knowledge there are zero hatchery reared steelhead released into the Eel watershed. They stopped that years ago.

[Darian]

Granted the Tech Memo cited is not a current date but is a source of info that establishes that an egg taking station does exist and any eggs/milt collected there are/were raised at a hatchery since there isn't an egg rearing facility at the same location. So, I'm not sure what you're pointing out (whether the egg taking station exists or the fish in the Eel are wild??? If the latter, I'd agree that the Salmon/Steelhead are wild and that stocking may've stopped but the remaining fish are not necessarily original strain Eel River fish.

One of the factors in whether the egg taking station is activated or not is whether there's enough water in the upper Eel to allow fish passage to the ladder. In many low water years before 2004, the Eel was virtually dry in that area effectively making passage impossible. During that year, an agreement was reached to provide minimum flows below Cape Horn Dam. Another is whether the the hatchery on the Mad River is operated. At times, in the past it was closed for lack of funds. Check out the link to the agreement mentioned in the Redwood Times:

http://www.redwoodtimes.com/garbervillenews/ci_20681657/pg-e-releases-block-water-eel-river-warm

[Darian]

Walter,.... This quote is taken in part from your post:

"Darian you dont know how much the skamania genes have proliferated. No one can say one eay or another without tons of scale samples for DNA. Nobody can say one way or another.

So in the absence of knowledge we should preserve the "wild" and feral genes that survive, and quit polluting them with scientifically proven-to-be inferior spawning partners(hatchery fish) and that resource competition." (Italics added)

So, if eggs/genes from the Skamania strain of steelhead have proliferated as a result of being artificially distributed, could they be considered a non-native, invasive species??? Sorry Walter, the Devil made me do it.... ;)

[shawn kempkes]

[QUOTE=Darian;129407]Granted the Tech Memo cited is not a current date but is a source of info that establishes that an egg taking station does exist and any eggs/milt collected there are/were raised at a hatchery since there isn't an egg rearing facility at the same location. So, I'm not sure what you're pointing out (whether the egg taking station exists or the fish in the Eel are wild??? If the latter, I'd agree that the Salmon/Steelhead are wild and that stocking may've stopped but the remaining fish are not necessarily original strain Eel River fish.


The Skamania Strain is a summer run that returns early and are a larger strain of fish than the typical A-run Columbia river steelhead. if there are or were any Skamania fish in the Eel they likely would be gone by now since they dont plant them any more. Also there would be little to no gene flow between them and the wild winter run fish in the Eel because they spawn at different times.


The one thing that the Chilcote (Hood River ) study mentions but that most wild steelhead advocates would like to forget is that when there is a hatchery/ wild interaction on the reds the wild fish only have hatchery genes for two generations. The problem is that when a hatchery fish spawns with wild fish it is not a fit reproductively as a wild fish and the smolt to adult survival rate is very low.

[Darian]

Thanks for that info. I'm not sure that I understand why there would be no evidence of Skamania or any other introduced fish into a population of resident fish after two years of interaction. Would that be as a result of the short life expectancy of any crosses or a blending of the genes to the point that hatchery genes are no longer readily identifiable??? :confused:

[shawn kempkes]

Thanks for that info. I'm not sure that I understand why there would be no evidence of Skamania or any other introduced fish into a population of resident fish after two years of interaction. Would that be as a result of the short life expectancy of any crosses or a blending of the genes to the point that hatchery genes are no longer readily identifiable??? :confused:

I am not a geneticist but it has to be something along the lines survival of the fittest. The hatchery fish genes are maladaptive to living in the wild and they dont produce viable offspring.

[Walter]

I am not a geneticist but it has to be something along the lines survival of the fittest. The hatchery fish genes are maladaptive to living in the wild and they dont produce viable offspring.

Thanks Shawn. That is the folly in having hatcheries in the first place. Especially in places like the russian where wild fish would benefit from the financial investment currently put into hatchery fish. Hatchery fish that give the wild fish a harder time at surviving as a distinct viable native species.

If nothing else, is there work and research toward making a better raised and produced hatchery fish? That is a better question.

[Frank Alessio]

You guys need to tell the Fisherman in the Great lakes region your Ideas on how bad Hatcheries are.... Go ahead give it a try... I will be watching the results.....This will be interesting being their entire fishery is based on Hatchery reared fish from the West coast....

[DAVID95670]

You guys need to tell the Fisherman in the Great lakes region your Ideas on how bad Hatcheries are.... Go ahead give it a try... I will be watching the results.....This will be interesting being their entire fishery is based on Hatchery reared fish from the West coast....

The great lakes fishery is amazing and they are bigger than the fish I catch on the American (35 in hand since jan 9 2013 all adults).

As a geneticist I can tell you they are all the freaking same, nature prevails and nurture is bullshit. They all fight they all swim they all fornicate and the offspring of hatchery fish are thus wild and unclipped. This arguement is complete crap. Get off the couch and catch some fish I have and every one of them has been swinging!

And they taste pretty damn good to boot. Here is the latest hatchery fish it is in my fridge if you want to inspect it before I broil it. I guess I am doing my part to eat my way through the hatchery fish this year. I also think the run is done I have not had a multi fish day in two weeks. Best day was 5 adults interestingly the last week of January 2013 were all wild (70% hens 30% bucks). And a premptive comment : I only fish swift moving runs so no bullshit a-hole comments about fishing Redds and yes these numbers are real I hope all the couch internet fools have their scrotums retract into their bellies when they realize how many fish an effect and proficient spey fly fisher can get to hand if you simply fish (twice a day 2 hrs at a time).

6521

[DAVID95670]

another great photo


6522

[jbird]

Lol! So weve gone from a pretty rich, civil discussion here to "Doesnt everyone see how wonderful I am?"
Your condescending words overshadow the credibility of your fishing prowess.

[shawn kempkes]

The great lakes fishery is amazing and they are bigger than the fish I catch on the American (35 in hand since jan 9 2013 all adults).

As a geneticist I can tell you they are all the freaking same, nature prevails and nurture is bullshit. They all fight they all swim they all fornicate and the offspring of hatchery fish are thus wild and unclipped. This arguement is complete crap. Get off the couch and catch some fish I have and every one of them has been swinging!

And they taste pretty damn good to boot. Here is the latest hatchery fish it is in my fridge if you want to inspect it before I broil it. I guess I am doing my part to eat my way through the hatchery fish this year. I also think the run is done I have not had a multi fish day in two weeks. Best day was 5 adults interestingly the last week of January 2013 were all wild (70% hens 30% bucks). And a premptive comment : I only fish swift moving runs so no bullshit a-hole comments about fishing Redds and yes these numbers are real I hope all the couch internet fools have their scrotums retract into their bellies when they realize how many fish an effect and proficient spey fly fisher can get to hand if you simply fish (twice a day 2 hrs at a time).

6521



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-FucbvoFFy0

[Darian]

So, it seems that by casting a wide net on a controversial subject a good discussion was generated for a while. I guess there's not much more to get out of this (learn), so, I'm "outa here". I did pick up a few gems along the way and it was fun for a while.... :cool:

[stonefish]

Interesting thread. Since the Elwha and it's wild trout were mentioned earlier I thought others might find this steelhead study interesting. This wasn't just a few year study, but took place over 15 years with thousands of steelhead involved.
It seems that wild rainbows may if given the chance will play a key part in wild steelhead recovery.
I say may because states such as Washington still allow limits of two trout over 14" on many streams with wild steelhead runs.
As far as the Elwha goes, there are a ton of politics involved. Unfortunately with the large new tribal hatchery that was built, I personally don't think we'll get to see what mother nature can do on it's own. That is a shame because it is truly a once in a lifetime opportunity since so much of the river habitat is within the ONP.
http://ecotrope.opb.org/2011/01/study-steelhead-mate-with-rainbow-trout/
SF

[Fish Guru]

You guys need to tell the Fisherman in the Great lakes region your Ideas on how bad Hatcheries are.... Go ahead give it a try... I will be watching the results.....This will be interesting being their entire fishery is based on Hatchery reared fish from the West coast....
You're missing the point here Frank, the discussion was centering on comparing hatchery to wild fish and the effects of hatchery fish on pre existing populations of wild fish. Not really sure what a fishery that is hatchery only and that never had wild fish in the first place has to do with this discussion. How on earth would they're hatcheries negatively or positively impact something that never existed is beyond me.

[Fish Guru]

You guys need to tell the Fisherman in the Great lakes region your Ideas on how bad Hatcheries are.... Go ahead give it a try... I will be watching the results.....This will be interesting being their entire fishery is based on Hatchery reared fish from the West coast....


The great lakes fishery is amazing and they are bigger than the fish I catch on the American (35 in hand since jan 9 2013 all adults).

As a geneticist I can tell you they are all the freaking same, nature prevails and nurture is bullshit. They all fight they all swim they all fornicate and the offspring of hatchery fish are thus wild and unclipped. This arguement is complete crap. Get off the couch and catch some fish I have and every one of them has been swinging!

And they taste pretty damn good to boot. Here is the latest hatchery fish it is in my fridge if you want to inspect it before I broil it. I guess I am doing my part to eat my way through the hatchery fish this year. I also think the run is done I have not had a multi fish day in two weeks. Best day was 5 adults interestingly the last week of January 2013 were all wild (70% hens 30% bucks). And a premptive comment : I only fish swift moving runs so no bullshit a-hole comments about fishing Redds and yes these numbers are real I hope all the couch internet fools have their scrotums retract into their bellies when they realize how many fish an effect and proficient spey fly fisher can get to hand if you simply fish (twice a day 2 hrs at a time).

6521

As a geneticist you should know that the offspring of hatchery fish that spawn in a natural environment are exponentially inferior to the offspring of wild fish. Hatchery fish compete with wild fish for spawning habitat and dilute the gene pool if they cross breed, amongst other ways they negatively impact wild populations of steelhead. The science has been proven over and over, how one can even try to argue this is beyond comprehension.
If you've caught as many as you state, there's no way you can say they fight the same as well. Hatchery turds do not hold a candle to the fight of a true wild steelhead. Occasionally one will give a semi spirited fight, but for the most part they are pretty weak in that area, yet another area where they are inferior. To each their own though.

[Frank Alessio]

My point is there would not be a fishery there without the hatcheries...All the rest on this coast is only guess work... Once man took the first step into the Forest and the River it changed the Game Forever.... When I fished the Grand Rhonde you could not tell what you had until you landed it.....The Planters in Dunsmuir fight great...When you call a Fish a turd I think you are operating on emotion and we all know where that gets us....

[jbird]

Yeah, while wild fish do tip the scales in favor of stronger fighters, I have caught some insane clipped fish And some turd natives. Ive caught some wild fish up to 7# that I stripped right in in 2 minutes or less. Alas this discussion WAS going in a much better, informative direction than this topic...

[DAVID95670]

As a geneticist you should know that the offspring of hatchery fish that spawn in a natural environment are exponentially inferior to the offspring of wild fish.

this is incorrect, genetic make up will not change how you spawn, nature prevails. I have no idea how this idea has ever taken hold. animals will spawn it is inate, and as a geneticist it is simple DNA is DNA there are no spontaneous recurring mutations when raised in a holding tank then released ...

[Fish Guru]

My point is there would not be a fishery there without the hatcheries...All the rest on this coast is only guess work... Once man took the first step into the Forest and the River it changed the Game Forever.... When I fished the Grand Rhonde you could not tell what you had until you landed it.....The Planters in Dunsmuir fight great...When you call a Fish a turd I think you are operating on emotion and we all know where that gets us....

I see your point Frank but for this discussion it's like arguing apples to oranges. And plenty of studies have been done in regards to effects of hatchery fish in rivers that have existing wild populations, the proof is out there. I do agree that once man got involved that the game plan has changed forever, I'm just not sold that what were going is the best approach. I think that people often assume that having hatchery steelhead provides more oppurtunity for anglers to catch steelhead, and in some cases this may be true, but more often than not it just provides anglers with more oppurtunity to harvest steelhead. If the money invested in hatchery programs was spent towards restoring native habitat, I think we would see a resurgence of wild fish numbers on many rivers. On the other hand rivers like the American need hatchery fish to have anything to fish for, and that's the pickle. Cases like the American are prime examples of where man has changed the gameplan forever.
And I have had some hatchery fish provide decent to good fights, but can't remember any that have put up the spirited fights from the majority of the true wild fish that I have been fortunate to tangle with. Turds may have been an emotional response, but dissapointing fights with chrome bright fish over and over will do that.

[Fish Guru]

this is incorrect, genetic make up will not change how you spawn, nature prevails. I have no idea how this idea has ever taken hold. animals will spawn it is inate, and as a geneticist it is simple DNA is DNA there are no spontaneous recurring mutations when raised in a holding tank then released ...
Gonna have to disagree with you on multiple fronts here David. Many studies have been done that scientifically disagree with what you are saying. Also, when you mix in a strain of fish that is not native to a particular watershed why is it that In order to keep them there man has to keep stocking them? If what you're saying about genetic makeup and DNA were true, then these non native hatchery fish would adapt and become a naturally occurring part of rivers where they are stocked, but it's just not happening.

[Walter]

Interesting thread. Since the Elwha and it's wild trout were mentioned earlier I thought others might find this steelhead study interesting. This wasn't just a few year study, but took place over 15 years with thousands of steelhead involved.
It seems that wild rainbows may if given the chance will play a key part in wild steelhead recovery.
I say may because states such as Washington still allow limits of two trout over 14" on many streams with wild steelhead runs.
As far as the Elwha goes, there are a ton of politics involved. Unfortunately with the large new tribal hatchery that was built, I personally don't think we'll get to see what mother nature can do on it's own. That is a shame because it is truly a once in a lifetime opportunity since so much of the river habitat is within the ONP.
http://ecotrope.opb.org/2011/01/study-steelhead-mate-with-rainbow-trout/
SF

You are correct! The opportunity lost here, to study wild fish recovery, cannot be understated.

[Darian]

Just to mention that we shouldn't confuse genetics with environmental conditions or other external factors....

" Originally Posted by DAVID95670
this is incorrect, genetic make up will not change how you spawn, nature prevails. I have no idea how this idea has ever taken hold. animals will spawn it is inate, and as a geneticist it is simple DNA is DNA there are no spontaneous recurring mutations when raised in a holding tank then released ..."

" Fish Guru
Gonna have to disagree with you on multiple fronts here David. Many studies have been done that scientifically disagree with what you are saying. Also, when you mix in a strain of fish that is not native to a particular watershed why is it that In order to keep them there man has to keep stocking them? If what you're saying about genetic makeup and DNA were true, then these non native hatchery fish would adapt and become a naturally occurring part of rivers where they are stocked, but it's just not happening."


Fish Guru,.... If you could provide a link to any of these "Many studies...." you mention I would appreciate it. I'm not saying they don't exist, just can't find any. A link(s) would help.

I'm not aware of any studies that say that contradict Davids assertion that, "....there are no spontaneous recurring mutations when raised in a holding tank then released ..." Not a geneticist, but I believe David is correct on this. Gotta add/subtract some genetic material to cause a mutation. Neither does genetic make-up dictate where a fish will spawn. At a high level, genetic make-up determines if something is a fish and of what type, sex, etc. Fish live, breath/feed and reproduce in water. They produce eggs/milt in order to procreate. That's a strategy for procreation. Genetic make-up doesn't dictate where in a watery environment spawning will take place. Just that it takes place.

"Fish Guru (again)
Also, when you mix in a strain of fish that is not native to a particular watershed why is it that In order to keep them there man has to keep stocking them? If what you're saying about genetic makeup and DNA were true, then these non native hatchery fish would adapt and become a naturally occurring part of rivers where they are stocked, but it's just not happening."


Skamania Steelhead (a desirable, naturally spawning fish) were distributed over several watersheds where they were non-native long ago. According to Shawn Kempkes in a prior post, their genes were no longer as widely distributed as some have said they are. Could that be due to genetic mixing, habitat loss, straying, fishing pressure??? Who can say. At any rate, they're not restocked to maintain their genetic integrity.

IMO, Adaption/survival rates for hatchery reared fish after introduction are probably more impacted by external factors than DNA. Along that line of thinking, maybe a large number of hatchery reared fish do survive to become natural spawners. The Idaho study would appear to say that they don't. But that was on resident brooks/rainbows and still doesn't change the fact that there're so many fisherman pounding the Rivers/streams of this state, that one of many reasons hatchery reared fish (and natives for that matter) are not surviving in numbers is that they're caught and removed. Maybe their habitat is so screwed up that they're unable to survive. Then there's then issue of predation and we haven't even began to touch on oceanic conditions.... Too easy to say that they're "....exponentially inferior."

[Fish Guru]

http://oregonstate.edu/ua/ncs/archives/2011/dec/hatcheries-change-steelhead-genetics-after-single-generation
http://projects.registerguard.com/csp/cms/sites/web/sports/outdoors/15263357-41/story.csp
http://nativefishsociety.org/conservation/wild_vs_hatchery/annotated_bibliography_on_salmon_hatcheries/fitness/genetic_changes_from_hatchery_propgation.htm

There's quite a bit more info that is readily available that states hatchery fish are genetically inferior to native fish. Perhaps it has to do with the mixing of strains to find what people think would be ideal for a specific watershed or maybe it is that natural selection is absent in hatchery fish, I dunno. But the evidence is definitely available that they are indeed different and affect native fish negatively.

[Darian]

Thanks for the links.... :cool:

[winxp_man]

I didn't read to much of this thread but some things that stand out to me with hatchery fish is the fact that......


1. They are hand feed and they end up developing bad habits. ( Same thing can be said for any animal on this planet) Captivity basically takes away the feeding instinct that a wild fish has. THIS IS NOT SAYING ALL HATCHERY FISH ARE LIKE THIS! But simply saying that when they are released in the wild they don't have the instinct to eat what is out there so they have to figure it out by themselves. This in return makes survival harder having to learn that hey will not eat from some ones hand anymore.

2. The hatchery fish are safe guarded by nets and other sorts of protection measures thus bringing up the issue that they stop trying to keep an eye out for danger. ( Take a look at the turkeys and deer in the American river parkways they are not afraid of humans at all. Now try to relocate them in some national forest that allows hunting they will not survive long if hunting pressure is way up there.) So now we have fish that once released have to learn to protect themselves by looking for placed to hind and how to do it good. This AGAIN!!! ........ does not mean that all will die and parish. But it does make it harder to be like the wild counter part.

So now if people in charge of the natural resources would get on it and instead of lining their pockets with money make a stride to fix thing then we can just maybe save the wild fish of any state.
Its really simple how hard would it be to make a natural hatchery?? I say let the natural elements still happen (that is birds and such that prey on fish have access but at the same time build under water protection pockets for the little ones). Then maybe try bringing in natural bugs of the original river so they can feed (like this cant really be done) and things of this sort can be tried and I know would work and thus making these young frys and smolts work at what they need to do to learn how to survive and making it there natural instinct to do what they do instead of learning what they learn in a hatchery.......


Now if the Hatchery fish make it back to spawn (in the river and not go up to the hatchery) after 2-4 years then that fish will pass on good genetics making the offspring just fine for a wild steelhead. And the way I see it is if you try to argue that its all opinion. Because you just can not say 100% its still inferior to a wild fish. Take this for example I have German Shepherd dogs imported from Germany. Now I have been watching very close for this. The offspring from a German Shepherd that has had training like a dog should all come out being super smart and know their left from right. Then when I first got German Shepherds from a person locally that did not train them...... well these pups were not the brightest in the world. But to make it better I managed to train the pup from the not so trained little and its offspring were actually picking up the traits that that Sire and Dam that I trained learned and did know left from right better then the parents did when they were pups from untrained parents.


Hope this made a little sense I can speak better than I can write but this is a interesting topic after I saw a couple of the posts in here.


Oh and imagine humans if everything went in a collapse and needed to survive off instinct :D

[winxp_man]

http://oregonstate.edu/ua/ncs/archives/2011/dec/hatcheries-change-steelhead-genetics-after-single-generation
http://projects.registerguard.com/csp/cms/sites/web/sports/outdoors/15263357-41/story.csp
http://nativefishsociety.org/conservation/wild_vs_hatchery/annotated_bibliography_on_salmon_hatcheries/fitness/genetic_changes_from_hatchery_propgation.htm

There's quite a bit more info that is readily available that states hatchery fish are genetically inferior to native fish. Perhaps it has to do with the mixing of strains to find what people think would be ideal for a specific watershed or maybe it is that natural selection is absent in hatchery fish, I dunno. But the evidence is definitely available that they are indeed different and affect native fish negatively.


Guru,

I know 100% its the natural resources that ruin the hatchery fish not the fact that they are breed through a hatchery. My father owns lots of Homer Pigeons and all are breed in a cage of some sort. Now the ones that he decides to let go out will learn the ways of the wild and know how to get away from a hawk. Now the ones that are kept inside do not thus making them easy targets for hawks and will die if they do not learn fast. I see it the same with any animal kept in captivity. Animals learn to be wild pretty quick but thats if they survive to learn it.

[Darian]

After a cursory review of some of the studies mentioned, the general consensus is that, in general:



hatchery bred/reared fish are inferior to natural spawners,
some genetic mixing does occur,
hatchery fish do not last as long in the system,
hatchery fish don't always occupy the same places in rivers/streams as naturals,
interbreeding between the two is more likely as males (both types) were determined to be able to mate with females many times during the season (females tend to spawn only once per season), and
genetic differences have been noted.


Now, if you recall, the original studies mentioned pointed out that impacts of hatchery fish on the natural spawners in the same systems were overstated due to the observations that the incidence of genetic mixing was actually low as stocked fish didn't stay in the system long enough to be a major factor. So, it seems to me that in many ways, the conclusions from current studies would tend to support those of the Idaho study. The only real differences to resolve seem to be the rates at which the negative impacts apply. For me, this is a satisfactory answer to the original questions in this thread. No Need to resolve genetics issues.

I'll make one observation, here. Bill MacMillan once wrote in an article titled "Limitations To Seeing" for Washington Trout, "the human mind seems to work best when it focuses on a particular subject. Much of science is based on that ability to focus. The danger is that peripherals may go un-noticed." (italics added)

His point was that these studies very often do not take into account environmental, habitat, economic, development, and political, etc., factors that are equal to or more important to preserving a species than whether a fish is hatchery bred or natural. Yet, these concerns are not often considered as part of the study process. The article he wrote also includes his observations about trips to the Kamchatka Peninsula area of Russia where he felt that the rivers/streams there were most likely one of the last places remaining unchanged since the origination of steelhead. Russian fisheries biologists believed that the original Steelhead strain started in that area.

As a practical matter, it's probably too late for all but a few places in lower 48 states to be returned to any level of full restoration....

(Yikes!!! I just re-read what I wrote and decided to edit, clarify it....)

[winxp_man]

His point was that these studies very often do not take into account environmental, habitat, economic, development, and political, etc., factors that are equal or more important to preserving a species than whether a fish is hatchery bred or natural, yet these concerns are not often considered as part of the study process. The article he wrote also includes his observations about trips to the Kamchatka Peninsula area of Russia where he felt that the rivers/streams there were most likely one of the last places remaining unchanged since the origination of steelhead. Russian fisheries biologists believed that the original Steelhead strain started in that area.

As a practical matter, it's probably too late for all but a few places in lower 48 states.



Darian well posted !!! And its what my though process is to. The fact that most studies look at just the basic fish and its actions while forgetting about other factors that have to be added to see the true origin on how to fix the issue. I say it all starts with money. If money is put in the right placed instead of the wrong then we will start to see improvements with our wild fish.


The one that gets me about animal is when my father told me of a few cases where he had unhatched homing pigeon eggs and when the pigeon baby got older it flew off to the original owners house that that right there is freak genetics :D But awesome at the same time.

[Fish Guru]

Very well posted Darian, I couldn't agree more on how it's probably too late for the majority of our rivers and that is pretty depressing. It seems the more humans are involved, whether trying to fix things or not, the bigger the problems are. There are so many different opinions out there on the best ways to salvage our rivers that it leads one to wonder what the future holds for said rivers.

[Walter]

Very well posted Darian, I couldn't agree more on how it's probably too late for the majority of our rivers and that is pretty depressing. It seems the more humans are involved, whether trying to fix things or not, the bigger the problems are. There are so many different opinions out there on the best ways to salvage our rivers that it leads one to wonder what the future holds for said rivers.

Those who think its too late for the state of CA Wild Steelhead don't get out enough. You don't need hatcheries on rivers with decent numbers of wild fish. The hatchery dumps are part of the problem. Especialy on rivers where they dump year after year after year. If nothing else this is the Antithesis(look that up)to the Idaho study. So to Darian's argument about these puppet Idaho studies...look a little deeper. Omg! I'm gonna have a coronary now. Somebody whack a hatchery fish for me so I can relax.

: )

[shawn kempkes]

Epic an environmental group just sued the state and NMFS over the Mad River hatchery.
http://www.courthousenews.com/2013/02/15/54900.htm

[Larry S]

Shawn,
Thanks for the link. As Arte Johnson's character on Laugh-In used to say; "Verrrry interesting!"
Best,
Larry S

[Darian]

Hmmm, another lawsuit making the attorneys of yet another NGO very wealthy at our expense. The major issue (impact of hatchery operations and stocking fish) should be the only one contested. The others are housekeeping, involving permits/studies required that date back to times before passage of the ESA or NEPA. If past history is any indicator, each of the court will grant time for completion of the housekeeping issues. Then, maybe, a trial to resolve the real issue and we can get it settled (legally).

Wonder how long it'll be before the administrative issues are taken care of and a decision rendered on the real issue??? The government will probably stretch it out to 10 maybe 15 years??? After that, if the decision is to close the Mad River hatchery (and others?), maybe we'll get a chance to see whether the impacts of having no hatchery fish (Walters favorite idea) will work.

BTW, I notice by his latest post, that someone seems to've got his shorts in a bunch. Walter, step back and take a deeeeeeep breath. Now, exhale, slooooowwly...., and realize that this whole discussion was a troll; an exercise started by me some 7 pages back. Most everyone else saw it for just that. It's now hooked you twice. Once by an insulting PM you sent to me and now in your last post. At the risk of causing you a coronary, I'd say that you're a single minded, one trick pony!!! If you're going to continue to participate in this manner, maybe you should consider seeking some counseling.... ;)

[Walter]

Hmmm, another lawsuit making the attorneys of yet another NGO very wealthy at our expense. The major issue (impact of hatchery operations and stocking fish) should be the only one contested. The others are housekeeping, involving permits/studies required that date back to times before passage of the ESA or NEPA. If past history is any indicator, each of the court will grant time for completion of the housekeeping issues. Then, maybe, a trial to resolve the real issue and we can get it settled (legally).

Wonder how long it'll be before the administrative issues are taken care of and a decision rendered on the real issue??? The government will probably stretch it out to 10 maybe 15 years??? After that, if the decision is to close the Mad River hatchery (and others?), maybe we'll get a chance to see whether the impacts of having no hatchery fish (Walters favorite idea) will work.

BTW, I notice by his latest post, that someone seems to've got his shorts in a bunch. Walter, step back and take a deeeeeeep breath. Now, exhale, slooooowwly...., and realize that this whole discussion was a troll; an exercise started by me some 7 pages back. Most everyone else saw it for just that. It's now hooked you twice. Once by an insulting PM you sent to me and now in your last post. At the risk of causing you a coronary, I'd say that you're a single minded, one trick pony!!! If you're going to continue to participate in this manner, maybe you should consider seeking some counseling.... ;)

Bonehead. Numbskull. A spade is a spade Darian. Go on and get it over with and stop confusing people with the same nonsense that screwed up the last generation of fishing. Many of your peers are so much more inspiring. Based on their supportive PM's to me, I think people are figuring it out for themselves. And you still don't get my point.


And you haven't hooked jack....

[shawn kempkes]

Darian
f
I actually agree with the lawsuit You can read more about it here. http://www.wildcalifornia.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/Mad-River-Notice.pdf Theres tons of info in the citations in there.


I dont agree with the new management philosophy of mining the few remaining wild steelhead in a river to produce hatchery fish so that a few guides and a few locals can catch them. If you sat and talked to the guys that run a hatchery program using wild fish for brood stock like I have you would agree with this lawsuit to.

[lee s.]

Capturing wild fish for brood stock.....isn't that what is being done on the Chetco? Capture wild fish, take'em to a hatchery, raise the fry, release them as smolts back into the Chetco......?
Walter,
Should make you happy....we went and pestered MANY hatchery smolts on the Russian with 2wt and 3wt yesterday. We plan more education excursions in the near future.....the smolts education.
I see the value of BOTH views. However, NEITHER is a blanket solution! Local system deterioration MUST be the deciding factor as to the application, and how much, of either "solution". Until we REVERSE our enviriomental degradation and, at least, make the WATER non-lethal to the fish, we are ALL blowing smoke.
....lee s.

[Fish Guru]

Those who think its too late for the state of CA Wild Steelhead don't get out enough. You don't need hatcheries on rivers with decent numbers of wild fish. The hatchery dumps are part of the problem. Especialy on rivers where they dump year after year after year. If nothing else this is the Antithesis(look that up)to the Idaho study. So to Darian's argument about these puppet Idaho studies...look a little deeper. Omg! I'm gonna have a coronary now. Somebody whack a hatchery fish for me so I can relax.

: )

Walter, i agree that hatcheries are not needed on rivers with decent numbers of wild fish, but the problem is that governing bodies don't agree with this for the most part. A common ground on what really needs to happen to fix things seems to be unattainable, and that's why the statement of it being too late for many rivers makes sense. I think it's too late for many rivers( not all) because the policies in place are rarely for the best interests of the fishery and are more directed at increased revenues or keeping the revenue stream flowing.
On a side note, the hatchery free Eel watershed has been seeing a revival of its steelhead and Salmon of late, but now this fishery faces a major hurdle as industrial pot farms are dumping tons of sediment and comtaminants into the rivers. Although the hatcheries aren't destroying this watershed, the policies that allow these pot farms to operate virtually unchecked are putting this watershed in imminent danger. I'm very surprised no one on this board is talking about the damge that is being done in a short amount of time.
And no worries Walter, I will do my best to whack the next hatchery fish I catch, that is about all that they are good for anyway...

[Fish Guru]

Darian
f
I actually agree with the lawsuit You can read more about it here. http://www.wildcalifornia.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/Mad-River-Notice.pdf Theres tons of info in the citations in there.


I dont agree with the new management philosophy of mining the few remaining wild steelhead in a river to produce hatchery fish so that a few guides and a few locals can catch them. If you sat and talked to the guys that run a hatchery program using wild fish for brood stock like I have you would agree with this lawsuit to.

After reading that, I would have to agree with the lawsuit as well. I may not know what the best solution is, but it is safe to say that harvesting wild fish that are potential natural spawners to make hatchery rejects is not in the best interests of protecting the wild fish.

[Darian]

I hope this lawsuit is a last resort.... Problems with lawsuits are too many to list here. There's a lot of exposure/risk involved. In this instance, it's not readily apparent whether a decision in this suit could/would apply to all hatcheries, statewide, as well as the Mad River Hatchery.

If you've been reading the newspapers recently, it's become increasingly obvious that politicians are seeing environmentalist groups (NGO's) as obstructionist, using the law (ESA, NEPA AND CEQA) to obstruct what they see as beneficial. Every time a lawsuit of this type is filed, that view is solidified. Our governor and some legislators are already planning to change CEQA. I guess I'm concerned that any proposed changes just might happen with some very bad results....

[Walter]

I hope this lawsuit is a last resort.... Problems with lawsuits are too many to list here. There's a lot of exposure/risk involved. In this instance, it's not readily apparent whether a decision in this suit could/would apply to all hatcheries, statewide, as well as the Mad River Hatchery.

If you've been reading the newspapers recently, it's become increasingly obvious that politicians are seeing environmentalist groups (NGO's) as obstructionist, using the law (ESA, NEPA AND CEQA) to obstruct what they see as beneficial. Every time a lawsuit of this type is filed, that view is solidified. Our governor and some legislators are already planning to change CEQA. I guess I'm concerned that any proposed changes just might happen with some very bad results....

Politicians feel that way because they throw the envronment under the bus. Look at Dianne and Gov. Brown working together behind the scenes on the new peripheral canal. Jerry father made the mistake of being a democratic leader and put the idea up to a vote. It was defeated. His son wont make that mistake again. Oligarchy. He'll push his agenda behind the scenes. Californians deserve the leaders they elect. And hatcheries bring fisherman who give those leaders more revenue.

Sue the crap out of them.

[shawn kempkes]

Politicians feel that way because they throw the envronment under the bus. Look at Dianne and Gov. Brown working together behind the scenes on the new peripheral canal. Jerry father made the mistake of being a democratic leader and put the idea up to a vote. It was defeated. His son wont make that mistake again. Oligarchy. He'll push his agenda behind the scenes. Californians deserve the leaders they elect. And hatcheries bring fisherman who give those leaders more revenue.

Sue the crap out of them.

Walter I don't know how old you are but the current whackjob you have for governor was the same one the advocated for the peripheral canal 35 years ago. Imho I can't believe how stupid the voters in California are to vote that guy into office again

Imho if the CDFW operates a hatchery without an approved hgmp in place they need to be sued.

[Walter]

Walter I don't know how old you are but the current whackjob you have for governor was the same one the advocated for the peripheral canal 35 years ago. Imho I can't believe how stupid the voters in California are to vote that guy into office again

Imho if the CDFW operates a hatchery without an approved hgmp in place they need to be sued.

You are correct Shawn. But it was his father, Pat Browns idea. The son, our current Gov, wants to finish the job.

Good summary:

http://articles.latimes.com/2012/jul/29/local/la-me-cap-water-20120730

Note all the damns the Brown family is partially responsible for. They have helped destroy our fisheries.

Pat Brown tried to convice the public that the canal would save the delta fishery. Read the link.

[Frank Alessio]

Amen......

[STEELIES/26c3]

This wild, native crazy horseshit argument holds less and less water as time goes on. We can take care of what we have now. We don't worry about the DNA of our workers, how do we make the case for the DNA of our fish?

THAT is quote and concept of the month FOR SURE!!

Love it
Thanks for it
Mark

[jbird]

LOL!




Something we all have to consider is that things have happened that nobody will admit to now. Rivers were planted with smolts, eggs were taken from spawners, you name it, it happened. This wild, native crazy horseshit argument holds less and less water as time goes on. We can take care of what we have now. We don't worry about the DNA of our workers, how do we make the case for the DNA of our fish?

YAY!


So if we demand genetic purity of our fish, how does this affect gay marriage, with turkey basters, fertilizing lesbians so we can continue to dominate the Olympic women's softball. Aw s..t I thought this was a sport chat page.

Nay!

[jbird]

hey Walt. looks like your temper came back huh? #banforgoodplease#

[Walter]

hey Walt. looks like your temper came back huh? #banforgoodplease#

Hardly at all, my friend. If you or this board wants to condone bigotry, that's nothing I want to participate in. You wouldn't need to ban me if that's what this board was about.

Hope you are well buddy.

[the_gnarwhale]

Walter says what a lot of us are thinking.

[jbird]

Is this your bigot assclown impression? You wouldn't last one minute in the Castro sweetie.
So I dont want to hear that crap.



Walter says what a lot of us are thinking.

Really? Not exactly.

[winxp_man]

Walter says what a lot of us are thinking.


Most seem to think with their keyboard and when it comes time to get out and fish I just don't see the proof. Sp I would say I do not think like Walter. I have my own opinions.

What is it kill the hatchery fish ?????????? Really one of the hardest hitting fish for me this year was a hatchery hen and David was right next to me and just could not believe it! Like I said and will stick with my saying. Nothing can be done because the people in power just want money to line there pockets with. You can not simply say argue this subject without having to talk about politics and then the system used and everything else down the line.

So to say kill the hatchery fish here will kill the fish system in the American. Then to say that there is proof that hatchery are inferior to wild well I will simply say ok what about all the shit the hatchery went through to get back up a freaking river. Is is not the same hardships that a wild goes through???? Then when they spawn in the river system and produce young that will learn the way of the wild or if not they will die is it not the same?? These animal do not train there young ones the way they learn it themselves. So who are we to have to right to say kill them all????

Maybe we should start killing people with handicap issues because they are inferior to normal humans ??


So to say that I want to argue one thing with out the other in this steelhead issue just does not make sense so ladies and gentlemen why don't we just end all the back and forth smack talk because its just a pile of crap.

[Walter]

Bear with me. Hatchery fish are like alcohol.

If you don't get a regular piece if tail you go to a bar. You drink alcohol, you meet a girl. You get laid. You say, "awesome, I just got laid." When you wake up in the morning you look at your date and say, "damn, she wasn't as pretty as I remember. And I know nothing about her personality. I'm outta here."

Now, let's say you met that date through a friend, and you hit it off before you started drinking, and she also was good looking BEFORE you started drinking. That might end up being the best girl you ever meet. Something you remember. Something that you cherish.

When you have a ton of hatchery fish its like looking at the river with beer goggles. All those resources could do so much more.

****+Here, you can read about the midevil torture rack they use on wild fish in Idaho to extract eggs for the hatchery fish. Then they actually try to rehab the fish. What a joke. And this is the agency that came out with the study that hatchery fish don't have much of an affect on wild fish. Thats because Idaho DFG gets to them first! Haha!

http://m.columbian.com/news/2013/mar/01/air-spawning-may-help-steelhead/

"Officials at Dworshak are taking notice of the egg-gathering technique, known as air-spawning. Ray Jones, a fisheries biologists there, said the method is much cleaner. But that isn’t the only advantage. Jones said air-spawned fish could be returned to the river. Most generally survive at least a few weeks and others longer."

These are precious wild fish. They don't deserve to have their eggs cut out or blown and squeezed out with an air pressure line to make hatchery clones. At least bonk them and let them not suffer more. Oh wait, then the hatchery would be taking wild fish...

And isn't that illegal??????

[winxp_man]

Walter have you ever been fishing in your life ???

[Frank Alessio]

Right on Aron....Walter needs to get a life... You just can not help some people.. God knows you have tried.....We need to Fish I have seen enough desert to last a life time...Are Aridillos good to eat. They sure are easy to shoot.....Call Me.....

[Walter]

Walter have you ever been fishing in your life ???

Plenty. This isn't a pissing contest.

May I respectfully ask if you have ever caught a wild steelhead, one that had not been in the river for over a month?

And Frank, Armadillos(I believe) are notorious for carrying salmonella. I wouldn't eat them. Bonk a hatchery fish instead, eh?

[winxp_man]

So Walter never said this was a pissing contest or anything of that sort. I also asked a serious question which again you seem to answer with questions if I have fished and caught Steelhead right out of the ocean. To which I can honestly answer no I have not. Not to go and say that the only time you can tell the difference between wild or hatchery is when they are at the first few miles of river that dumps into the ocean if not a way to answer the question if hatchery is inferior to wild fish.

TO SAY that I have not been able to tell the difference between wild or hatchery with fish that have been on the river for one or two months would not make any sense in your argument because even at the stage they are when I caught them the "WILD" fish should still be on top of hatchery no? Also I have released all of my fish I have caught this year....... Also this is my first year back into fishing for steelhead since about 04 of not longer.

SO to end my statement what good is a fish if you can only be in awe with by having to catch right at the beginning of a river that connects to the ocean? This tells me that there is not much difference between the two. So if both spawn in the river and the offspring make it back that is a wild fish which you seem to agree with. Maybe the hatcheries should stop cutting the adipose fins off and see if anyone can tell the difference :) Also what is your method of telling which fish is a harder fighter? Some kind of special scale that hooks up to your rod? I need to get one I guess.


Take care and have fun catching your wild fish. As for me I will catch what ever is in the water and willing to take a fly and enjoy it while its there.


Oh here is one to sooth your soul Walter.......... it can also be viewed in my 2013 steelhead thread I started. And still it did not fight as hard as the fish I mentioned earlier David was shocked at how hard it hit the fly and how well it fought.

http://i245.photobucket.com/albums/gg48/winxp_man/IMG_0778_zps37ba8a9b.jpg

[Darian]

Aron,.... Don't want to cause further problems here (this thread is about beating dead horse at this point) but I've caught many Steelhead at river mouths/estuaries and many upstream over the course of my life and can definitely confirm that not one I've caught miles from the ocean compared with those fresh in from the salt. It stands to reason that those freshly in-migrating fish have not begun to use their reserves. They're brighter/stronger and stunning in appearance.

Fish taken in these valley rivers/streams have swum more than a hundred miles in often turbid, mossy delta water to reach the American River (for example), longer to others. They have already started developing egg/milt sacks. Even tho feeding, they can't use the food they ingest as well as they were able to in the salt until they spawn.... Still fun to catch, tho, not as good to eat (IMO).

You owe yourself the treat of catching one down near the mouth of one of the Coastal rivers/streams. Hope you get a chance to do that soon. :cool:

[Walter]

Nothing about being close to the ocean.

But if all you catch is hatchery turds than you have no idea what you are missing.

Only maybe 5% of the hatchery steelhead Ive hooked have acted like wild fish in the water.

And my hatchery improvement/elimination arguments have not been in done so just for the sake of me, and what fish I carch.

If you are dependent on having hatchery fish to call yourself a steelheader than I suggest you rexamine the situation.


At risk of the publicity I have to confirm that what Darian says is correct and why we need better enforcement in places. I would love to have a chunk of hatchery budget money go toward another few wardens.

[shawn kempkes]

I agree with Darian. A fifteen pound wild Steelhead less than two miles from the Salt will tear you a new one. I have never had a hatchery fish jump like the wild winter fish do on the olympic peninsula do near tide water.

[JasonB]

Well this thread finally went sideways I see; betting you got even a bit more than you bargained for there Darian. Hell we even got into gay marriage, artificial insemination, and womens sports (that was an impressive trio in just one post!).... not quite sure how we got there talking about steelhead, but oh what a ride eh? Kind of like a wild steelhead, fresh out of the salt; hell bent on returning in one piece!

In all seriousness, I think that most of us could agree that if hatchery steelhead were all we had we would still fish for them and still enjoy ourselves. I would also hope that most, if not all of us could agree that we should NOT be willing to accept hatchery steelhead only as a reasonable substitute for wild runs; not while there is still a chance at having viable wild steelhead returns. Am I that naive here, or can we not all agree to that much?

What I see as one of the major factors here is that some folks are so hesitant to take any chance on loosing the opportunity to fish for ANY steelhead that they are worried about the loss of support and funding for hatchery programs, while others are so concerned that any concession at all towards hatchery fish means further eroding the dwindling populations of wild steelhead and minimizing/masking the very real threat and concern for the loss of our wild steelhead completely. I'm no biologist, geneticist, or even expert steelhead dude; but even I can see that maintaining healthy wild populations should remain priority number 1, regardless of hatchery successes or failures.

Perhaps the better questions here would be what each of us would be willing to concede, and what we would be willing to loose...
I know I would be willing to give a lot, and loose a lot of fishing privileges before I would be willing to see the extinction of all of our wild steelhead. That's my personal take on it anyways.
JB

[Darian]

as it was originally about introducing some recent/new study information for consideration. The source of the study was immediately denounced as non-credible. In spite of that it actually started out very well with some participants providing links to info that made it informative. Unfortunately, I knew that the longer it kept going the more off track it would become but had no idea it'd be as bad as it became (including exchanges of hostile PM's).

"Am I that naive here, or can we not all agree to that much?"

After going through a number of these over the years that I've been on this BB, I think I can safely say that there's not a lot of anything in the Salmon/Steelhead Forum that is open for objective discussion or subject to agreement by all. Maybe it's a good thing that we can't all agree but I regret that objective consideration/discussion can't take place. There's just way too much us vs them emotion involved. Seems like these things all become train wrecks. Under normal circumstances and since I don't fish for Steelhead any longer, I would've stayed away from posting in this forum. Guess I lost my head for a minute.... ;)

Considering some of the things you mention were posted in this thread and not deleted, I'm guessing that there's no longer a moderator for the BB. Kinda looks like open season. :(

[JasonB]

...Maybe it's a good thing that we can't all agree but I regret that objective consideration/discussion can't take place. There's just way too much us vs them emotion involved. Seems like these things all become train wrecks...

Maybe in part it's the seasonality, and the hight level of challenge that these fish represent that generates such emotions, I know that's certainly the case for me. Also I think that there are a lot of folks really concerned (emotional) over the level of threat that hangs over these most special fishes...

At any rate, I think that if we as anglers, let alone fly line anglers can't find some things to agree on then yes it's totally hopeless to expect anybody else to do anything meaningful and productive for them...
JB

[jbird]

dont think steelheaders are an anomoly. I have a couple other hobbies/crafts which I belong to forums. Internet arguing is becoming quite a popular sport no matter the subject. i bet people visciously argue about pasta on food forums. Its just the nature of open, roundtable discussions on the web. makes you appreciate the brilliance of the facebook format.

[JasonB]

dont think steelheaders are an anomoly. I have a couple other hobbies/crafts which I belong to forums. Internet arguing is becoming quite a popular sport no matter the subject. i bet people visciously argue about pasta on food forums. ...

*GASP!* argue about pasta! How can there be such argument, fresh homemade pasta for sure!!!

(and nobody has any right to say squat about being off topic considering all that's come before in this thread, ha!)

[BillB]

With 100% semolina and no less! We wouldn't want any weak pasta!

[Darian]

WOW!!! Now this thread has really become surreal.... ;)

[winxp_man]

WOW!!! Now this thread has really become surreal.... ;)

Its not that bad Darian....................


:D :D hahahaha............

[jbird]

this thread is turning into a tuesday afternoon session in the cuckoos nest. "Nurse Ratched, can I please have my cigarettes?)" "Mr. Chazwick! You sit down!"