"UNSPAWNED" A documentary about the mis/management of our central valley king salmon

[STEELIES/26c3]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P2QZuiRZGbw&feature=youtu.be&fbclid=IwAR3zgNNX0YythIaJKJ73SsxMNkpUTc_UShSMCsJYo KVI6VDoWLFQLDkv-e4

[Rossflyguy]

This makes me so mad. I just renewed my membership. Every fisherman in this state should be a member of this organization.

[Bill Kiene semi-retired]

Fishermen are a problem for the folks who want 100% of the water in California.


Wild fish is the only answer.................no hatcheries.............zero.


CA DF&W folks told me the politicians make all the decisions, or at least the big ones.


Our government takes the money from the fishing and hunting licenses and put it in the General Fund.



I have been in Florida for 15 years in the winter and our fisheries are crashing too.

30 years ago all our restaurants on the water were wholesale fish warehouses.

[JasonB]

Interesting, but I have to say I found it hard to trust after the numerous comments about hatchery salmon being identical to wild salmon. I definitely think they hit on some important issues though, but the pro hatchery marketing kind of muddied the message in my opinion. There were a few claims that I’d love to hear more about, and from other sources: that wild and hatchery salmon had already interbred to the point of not being any different, and that all wild salmon in the Central Valley were eliminated by the drought. The point about salmon being a massive part of the entire ecosystem certainly has powerful merit, and no question that our water policies have been very hard on the salmon.

[Rossflyguy]

Interesting, but I have to say I found it hard to trust after the numerous comments about hatchery salmon being identical to wild salmon. I definitely think they hit on some important issues though, but the pro hatchery marketing kind of muddied the message in my opinion. There were a few claims that I’d love to hear more about, and from other sources: that wild and hatchery salmon had already interbred to the point of not being any different, and that all wild salmon in the Central Valley were eliminated by the drought. The point about salmon being a massive part of the entire ecosystem certainly has powerful merit, and no question that our water policies have been very hard on the salmon.


Regardless if they’re wild or hatchery, dams prevent any wild spawning fish population from blowing up. Hatcheries are necessary to keep fish populations up. I don’t buy the whole wild vs hatchery genetics. Hatchery fish came from wild genetics and it’s been this way for longer than most of us have been alive.

[Fishtopher]

This documentary identified the main issue with our salmon populations as their very first point and it took 27 minutes for them to mention it again. Juvenile habitat and survival is the main bottleneck to salmon populations in most of CA. They mentioned Georgiana Slough and Clifton Court Forebay entraining 65% of smolts. Reduce that number by a few percent and you are talking an increase of millions of smolts making it to the ocean and into the fishery. There was a very good reason the state and federal agencies were trucking smolts to the bay in the past. In years where delta survival is expected to be low (low flows), this should be an option.

I do agree raising more fish has potential. I do not have any issue with the reduced numbers of smolts released from in-river hatcheries as they do compete with natural juveniles. We should be striving to have our salmon populations self-sustaining because in the long run, it is healthier and more economical cost-wise to do so. I would like to see more of what they do on the Mokelumne and release their excess juveniles in bays and estuaries to support commercial and recreational fishing in the ocean.

One major issue I have with this video is assuming spawning more fish in rivers automatically equals more juveniles, which is an incredibly simplistic view. Density-dependent factors come into play such as redd superimposition, increased competition for food in juveniles, among other issues. In the truncated rivers of the CV, spawning and rearing habitat has been greatly reduced so adding more fish just leads to lower spawning success and juvenile survival. You are better off removing excess spawners like they do currently at the hatcheries or via fishing harvest. I do agree selling those fish to outside companies is not a good idea and those nutrients should be placed back into the river either by dumping the eggs or just euthanizing the spawners and dumping them right back into the river.

Here is what I would like to see happen:
1 ) Move the hatcheries downriver. Having the hatcheries at the terminus of the rivers greatly increases hatchery and wild competition which the HSRG says we should not do. They mentioned in the video about the success of hatcheries in OR and WA. Most of the hatcheries there are lower in the river systems and do not allow the intermingling of wild and hatchery fish like we see in CA. You even see this in parts of CA. The Mad and Smith have some of the most robust Steelhead populations in CA. Some of which is probably due to the wild fish having access to the bulk of the basin while minimizing hatchery competition. Coleman is another great example. The bulk of the spawning habitat is above BC and the bulk of those Chinook above BC are wild. Doing this also reduces juvenile competition between hatchery and wild fish, which should also improve wild and hatchery survival.

2) Identify flow regimes conducive to juvenile growth and survival. Right now we manage our flow regimes for agriculture where we have much lower flows in the winter and spring, and much higher flows in the summer. We should be having the exact opposite.

3) Restore historical floodplain habitat. The Yolo Bypass studies at UCD are a great example of the potential for reconnecting floodplains. Start allowing some of these levees in the Delta to fail. Allow the floodplains to be reconnected again.

[STEELIES/26c3]

[QUOTE=Fishtopher;195211]This documentary identified the main issue with our salmon populations as their very first point and it took 27 minutes for them to mention it again. Juvenile habitat and survival is the main bottleneck to salmon populations in most of CA. They mentioned Georgiana Slough and Clifton Court Forebay entraining 65% of smolts. Reduce that number by a few percent and you are talking an increase of millions of smolts making it to the ocean and into the fishery. There was a very good reason the state and federal agencies were trucking smolts to the bay in the past. In years where delta survival is expected to be low (low flows), this should be an option.

Agreed that entrainment in GS and the Clifton Court Forebay is a major problem. Unfortunately, BOR and DWR are unwilling to place screens and/or relocate pump intakes to reduce this. Whereas, trucking smolts reduces entrainment and in-river predation... the potential negative impact is the smolts failing to imprint on their river of origin.

I do agree raising more fish has potential. I do not have any issue with the reduced numbers of smolts released from in-river hatcheries as they do compete with natural juveniles. We should be striving to have our salmon populations self-sustaining because in the long run, it is healthier and more economical cost-wise to do so. I would like to see more of what they do on the Mokelumne and release their excess juveniles in bays and estuaries to support commercial and recreational fishing in the ocean.

If the in-river juveniles are ultimately derived from hatchery broodstock ancestors (which on the American River 100% of the natural-origin steelhead and salmon are..) then competition from hatchery fish will only drive natural selection toward survival of the fittest and that is a positive. Face it... 12 miles of marginal spawning gravel + unreliable water flow and water temperature regimes will prevent the American River from ever having a sizable population of natural-origin fish regardless of what the hatchery produces or does not produce or how much habitat restoration is applied to the river.

One major issue I have with this video is assuming spawning more fish in rivers automatically equals more juveniles, which is an incredibly simplistic view. Density-dependent factors come into play such as redd superimposition, increased competition for food in juveniles, among other issues. In the truncated rivers of the CV, spawning and rearing habitat has been greatly reduced so adding more fish just leads to lower spawning success and juvenile survival. You are better off removing excess spawners like they do currently at the hatcheries or via fishing harvest. I do agree selling those fish to outside companies is not a good idea and those nutrients should be placed back into the river either by dumping the eggs or just euthanizing the spawners and dumping them right back into the river.

Yes, I agree that the video assumes premises which are overly simplistic and not always scientific. Carrying capacity, competition, predation, and other density-dependent factors do play a role.... however, I believe that allowing the river to reach its own carrying capacity rather than CDFW making determinations based on calculations fails to let the river live up to its fullest potential regarding viability of spawning habitat and fitness/success of salmonid individuals. And speaking as one who has walked that river from Hazel to Paradise Beach 150-300+ days a year for nearly 30 years, I can concur that even as recent as 12 years ago, spawning was taking place up and down the river and I have witnessed a very sharp and steady decline in salmon spawning in the the mid to lower river.

Here is what I would like to see happen:
1 ) Move the hatcheries downriver. Having the hatcheries at the terminus of the rivers greatly increases hatchery and wild competition which the HSRG says we should not do. They mentioned in the video about the success of hatcheries in OR and WA. Most of the hatcheries there are lower in the river systems and do not allow the intermingling of wild and hatchery fish like we see in CA. You even see this in parts of CA. The Mad and Smith have some of the most robust Steelhead populations in CA. Some of which is probably due to the wild fish having access to the bulk of the basin while minimizing hatchery competition. Coleman is another great example. The bulk of the spawning habitat is above BC and the bulk of those Chinook above BC are wild. Doing this also reduces juvenile competition between hatchery and wild fish, which should also improve wild and hatchery survival.

Those coastal rivers have cold water from their mouths to their hatcheries and in the 100 miles of headwaters above them. The lowest feasible point to locate a hatchery on the AR would be Discovery Park and the resultant headwaters would be a whopping 23 miles, the first 4 miles of which is mostly sand and not very productive as spawning habitat... CDFW is so poorly funded and managed, that the chance of them approving and funding a hatchery relocation is 0.0%.

The temperature gradient on our river also draws fish upriver to the dam where water is always 4-8% cooler than the water downstream of Watt Ave. Returning adults would be inclined to bypass the hatchery in favor of the colder water upriver and hatchery smolts released in the river (especially steelhead...) travel upriver as well as down river and often holdover for a year before heading to the salt. I'm not sure how much natural spawning would occur nor how well competition would be reduced in the given scenario but my guess is that it would be negligible.

2) Identify flow regimes conducive to juvenile growth and survival. Right now we manage our flow regimes for agriculture where we have much lower flows in the winter and spring, and much higher flows in the summer. We should be having the exact opposite.

ONE CAN ONLY DREAM OF THIS... In case you have not heard... BOR just signed their (and the fishes...) lives away to Westland's Water District:

Westlands Water District gets permanent U.S. contract for massive irrigation deliveries

"The Interior Department on Friday awarded the nation’s largest farm water district a permanent entitlement to annual irrigation deliveries that amount to roughly twice as much water as the nearly 4 million residents of Los Angeles use in a year."3) Restore historical floodplain habitat. The Yolo Bypass studies at UCD are a great example of the potential for reconnecting floodplains. Start allowing some of these levees in the Delta to fail. Allow the floodplains to be reconnected again.

AMEN BROTHER!! This is exactly what is needed and without which... additional spawning gravel will have no merit... I have echoed this long-held sentiment of Dennis Lee for many years now...

To be sure... I have little faith in an agency (CDFG Commission) whose president (Eric Sklar) a master vintner... is in charge of making decisions about our watersheds and managing our fish and wildlife... It's really too bad that a TRULY VIABLE wild steelhead fishery (Eel and SF Eel Rivers) are likely headed for extinction because of the very two industries Mr Sklar is primarily invested in... namely, Napa Valley wine grapes and cannabis cultivation...

It makes very difficult the task for folks like you and I and James Stone et al... to make a difference

But I will keep fighting for the fish and I hope you will too :)

[Bill Kiene semi-retired]

We still have too many dams.

Hatcheries don't work well after 7 years for some reason.

They are saying now we are wasting water to the ocean.

CA wants to eliminate all non-native fish......Stripers, Shad, all Bass....etc.

I heard the budget for the hatcheries was so bad they only take in fish for a short time to spawn.

They want the water for agriculture, not fish.

The CA state government does not have any transparency.

The sport of fishing is a huge part of any economy. Boats, big vehicles to tow, tackle, restaurants, lodgings, guides......

[WLREDBAND]

My reaction to this video is "MEH", just another special interest group (guides), pimping for the cause that benefits them economically the most without considering the negative impacts their desire brings. The majority of the video was screaming we want more hatchery fish, and that is at best a short term band-aid solution. At worst, it causes significant problems for natural production. They want all the surplus fish returned to the river because they think that will increase production, but the reality is due to the density dependent mortality factors mentioned by Fishtopher, that production goal will not be achieved. What they advocate is bad science, and they really should discuss their goals with some professional and academically qualified people before they proclaim something that is not true. The downfall of our salmon populations have very little to do with not enough hatchery production and everything to do with poor habitat and water management practices.

[winxp_man]

My reaction to this video is "MEH", just another special interest group (guides), pimping for the cause that benefits them economically the most without considering the negative impacts their desire brings. The majority of the video was screaming we want more hatchery fish, and that is at best a short term band-aid solution. At worst, it causes significant problems for natural production. They want all the surplus fish returned to the river because they think that will increase production, but the reality is due to the density dependent mortality factors mentioned by Fishtopher, that production goal will not be achieved. What they advocate is bad science, and they really should discuss their goals with some professional and academically qualified people before they proclaim something that is not true. The downfall of our salmon populations have very little to do with not enough hatchery production and everything to do with poor habitat and water management practices.


On rivers that have lost 70-90% of its spawning grounds it’s kinda of useless thinking and wishing to talk about habitat. Fact is these rivers do no drain naturally at 10,20,50,100k any longer. They drain at what humans tell them to drain at. So dumping more rocks and calling it habitat restoration is a joke! It’s like adding rock on top of a crap in a dug in crap house, and thinking you will have more room for crap, then adding more rock to subdue the smell and the same thinking that you will have more room. Fact is naturally river beds wash and flush at high river flows. That does not happen often at all in the valley rivers. Dams are the number one issue. So let’s be realists here, until dams are gone or a work around the dams is put in place.... Why fight over the ideas and opinions on habitat restoration in the valley I t’s to no avail.

These rivers are like damn 5 gallon fish tanks and the idea that putting in a few hundred gold fish will work! Thinking to let the fish do their thing naturally will be enough, is a joke. Let’s quite trying to fight the fact that we are in hopes that thousands of fish will eventually show up, and there will be a bounce back of numbers. Nature is showing us as we freaking speak the numbers the rivers in the valley can handle. And all I see is angry people on all sides of opinions and beliefs. Commercial fishing, and people that fish like crazy and keep don’t help either if more hatchery fish are not put in. It’s either one or the other. And I agree that some guides that argue numbers are wanting more fish for their personal gains, which I don’t personally agree with either. Steelie and I ended up calling it exploitation of the system for personal gains.

To each their own though.
Tight lines of you get out for a day of fishing.

[STEELIES/26c3]

My reaction to this video is "MEH", just another special interest group (guides), pimping for the cause that benefits them economically the most without considering the negative impacts their desire brings. The majority of the video was screaming we want more hatchery fish, and that is at best a short term band-aid solution. At worst, it causes significant problems for natural production. They want all the surplus fish returned to the river because they think that will increase production, but the reality is due to the density dependent mortality factors mentioned by Fishtopher, that production goal will not be achieved. What they advocate is bad science, and they really should discuss their goals with some professional and academically qualified people before they proclaim something that is not true. The downfall of our salmon populations have very little to do with not enough hatchery production and everything to do with poor habitat and water management practices.

That's a pretty shallow assessment... I bet your son, Christopher/Fishtopher makes more money as a biological consultant than these guides make guiding the rivers. I make NO money off the fisheries of the American River and I likely know it as well as or better than any guide or fisheries biologist alive. My advocacy is for the fish first and secondly, the fishermen... but I am so sick of seeing grant monies awarded to projects that neither provide for the fish nor the sport of fishing by agencies that really don't give a shit... At least the NCGASA folks are doing something (with private money instead of DWR's and BOR's dirty money that biologists spend on worthless f-ing projects) to make a positive difference so that the sport of fishing does not, along with our fisheries, disappear...

[WLREDBAND]

Just to be clear here, I am in NO WAY advocating for a suspension in hatchery production on our dam impacted rivers. There is no way for that to happen, even if additional habitat and water management practices improve (which I do support). Hatchery production MUST continue on these rivers. I am also in NO WAY advocating for the return of surplus stock hatchery fish being returned to the river, as James wants. That is a scientifically undefensible position, due to scientifically documented density dependent mortality and limited spawning habitat issues. Simply put, returning ALL surplus hatchery fish to the river is a BAD idea for a large variety of reasons as briefly discussed above. Any given stretch of our altered rivers only has the ability to spawn and rear a certain limited number of fish, and we are likely at that maximum level right now. Dumping more surplus fish back will NOT increase the number of salmon as claimed by James, and that is bad biological science that I DO NOT support.


On rivers that have lost 70-90% of its spawning grounds it’s kinda of useless thinking and wishing to talk about habitat. Fact is these rivers do no drain naturally at 10,20,50,100k any longer. They drain at what humans tell them to drain at. So dumping more rocks and calling it habitat restoration is a joke! It’s like adding rock on top of a crap in a dug in crap house, and thinking you will have more room for crap, then adding more rock to subdue the smell and the same thinking that you will have more room. Fact is naturally river beds wash and flush at high river flows. That does not happen often at all in the valley rivers. Dams are the number one issue. So let’s be realists here, until dams are gone or a work around the dams is put in place.... Why fight over the ideas and opinions on habitat restoration in the valley I t’s to no avail.

These rivers are like damn 5 gallon fish tanks and the idea that putting in a few hundred gold fish will work! Thinking to let the fish do their thing naturally will be enough, is a joke. Let’s quite trying to fight the fact that we are in hopes that thousands of fish will eventually show up, and there will be a bounce back of numbers. Nature is showing us as we freaking speak the numbers the rivers in the valley can handle. And all I see is angry people on all sides of opinions and beliefs. Commercial fishing, and people that fish like crazy and keep don’t help either if more hatchery fish are not put in. It’s either one or the other. And I agree that some guides that argue numbers are wanting more fish for their personal gains, which I don’t personally agree with either. Steelie and I ended up calling it exploitation of the system for personal gains.

To each their own though.
Tight lines of you get out for a day of fishing.

[WLREDBAND]

Way to go to make it personal Mark. I'm not playing your game of acrimony and personal insult. You seem to not want to discuss the scientific issues but attack the individual instead. Pretty typical. When you're ready to discuss the scientific issues, let me know, because both Fishtopher and myself will eat you for lunch since we both have academic and professional backgrounds in natural resources management.

That's a pretty shallow assessment... I bet your son, Christopher/Fishtopher makes more money as a biological consultant than these guides make guiding the rivers. I make NO money off the fisheries of the American River and I likely know it as well as or better than any guide or fisheries biologist alive. My advocacy is for the fish first and secondly, the fishermen... but I am so sick of seeing grant monies awarded to projects that neither provide for the fish nor the sport of fishing by agencies that really don't give a shit... At least the NCGASA folks are doing something (with private money instead of DWR's and BOR's dirty money that biologists spend on worthless f-ing projects) to make a positive difference so that the sport of fishing does not, along with our fisheries, disappear...

[STEELIES/26c3]

Way to go to make it personal Mark. I'm not playing your game of acrimony and personal insult. You seem to not want to discuss the scientific issues but attack the individual instead. Pretty typical. When you're ready to discuss the scientific issues, let me know, because both Fishtopher and myself will eat you for lunch since we both have academic and professional backgrounds in natural resources management.

I'm not impressed...

[Mark Kranhold]

Heard from a very reliable resource that the hatchery is releasing the smolts way to early, another hatchery screwup! These fish should be released in April not February. The smolts aren’t even done with the smolting phase and are not programmed yet that the American River is their birthing place. So now these released smolts are either getting lost in the system, or getting diseased such as Ich (Ichthyophthirius multifiliis) and dying or turning into striper bait.

[JasonB]

Just to be clear here, I am in NO WAY advocating for a suspension in hatchery production on our dam impacted rivers. There is no way for that to happen, even if additional habitat and water management practices improve (which I do support). Hatchery production MUST continue on these rivers. I am also in NO WAY advocating for the return of surplus stock hatchery fish being returned to the river, as James wants. That is a scientifically undefensible position, due to scientifically documented density dependent mortality and limited spawning habitat issues. Simply put, returning ALL surplus hatchery fish to the river is a BAD idea for a large variety of reasons as briefly discussed above. Any given stretch of our altered rivers only has the ability to spawn and rear a certain limited number of fish, and we are likely at that maximum level right now. Dumping more surplus fish back will NOT increase the number of salmon as claimed by James, and that is bad biological science that I DO NOT support.

Thanks for the clarification. I always appreciate when someone can articulate concerns for native or wild fish, habitat, etc; while also recognizing the necessity of some hatchery production in certain circumstances. I hope my earlier skepticism of the video wasn’t misinterpreted as being opposed to hatcheries entirely. I may be an idealist and a dreamer, but I’m also pragmatic enough to recognize that hatcheries do support some fisheries that wouldn’t exist otherwise. I’m not totally sure exactly where and how those lines are drawn, I definitely do appreciate folks with a much deeper factual knowledge sharing their perspectives. I’m open minded to hear scientifically valid suggestions about where and how those hatcheries could be most effective. I don’t doubt there are many valid issues that could be improved on, but the video came of as disingenuous to me as well.

One issue that concerned me most is more general/philosophical: I have big issues with trying to further a marketing message that hatchery and wild fish are essentially the same. If they are successful at pushing such an agenda, that has ramifications that would extend far beyond our Central Valley rivers. There are plenty of folks who want more hatchery steelhead in the Smith river for instance, want to be able to keep more fish, don’t care to support any habitat protections, etc...once the wild returns are too low just add more hatchery production.

Would I be willing to trade better local hatchery fisheries to the ultimate detriment of wild populations of steelhead elsewhere in this state or others? Definitely NOT! I’m more than willing to hear ideas about how hatcheries here could do better, about how water management practices could (and should!) be adjusted, etc etc etc... but I’m not willing to support any messaging that hatchery fish and wild fish are the same. I find it hard to trust much of anything else someone says after they’ve been pushing such a narrative. If I’m off base on the agenda behind the video, I think it shows they might need to broaden and clarify some of their positions and motives.

[Bill Kiene semi-retired]

Did you ever think there was a plan to eliminate all the salmon too?

The Water Barons do not want to give any water to the fish or any water to the ocean.

The politicians who run California will only give you lip service and then do exactly what they want or what they are paid to do.

Dream on......

[WLREDBAND]

Jason, you and I are on exactly the same page, and I agree 100% with every sentence you've written. Couldn't have said it any better myself!

Thanks for the clarification. I always appreciate when someone can articulate concerns for native or wild fish, habitat, etc; while also recognizing the necessity of some hatchery production in certain circumstances. I hope my earlier skepticism of the video wasn’t misinterpreted as being opposed to hatcheries entirely. I may be an idealist and a dreamer, but I’m also pragmatic enough to recognize that hatcheries do support some fisheries that wouldn’t exist otherwise. I’m not totally sure exactly where and how those lines are drawn, I definitely do appreciate folks with a much deeper factual knowledge sharing their perspectives. I’m open minded to hear scientifically valid suggestions about where and how those hatcheries could be most effective. I don’t doubt there are many valid issues that could be improved on, but the video came of as disingenuous to me as well.

One issue that concerned me most is more general/philosophical: I have big issues with trying to further a marketing message that hatchery and wild fish are essentially the same. If they are successful at pushing such an agenda, that has ramifications that would extend far beyond our Central Valley rivers. There are plenty of folks who want more hatchery steelhead in the Smith river for instance, want to be able to keep more fish, don’t care to support any habitat protections, etc...once the wild returns are too low just add more hatchery production.

Would I be willing to trade better local hatchery fisheries to the ultimate detriment of wild populations of steelhead elsewhere in this state or others? Definitely NOT! I’m more than willing to hear ideas about how hatcheries here could do better, about how water management practices could (and should!) be adjusted, etc etc etc... but I’m not willing to support any messaging that hatchery fish and wild fish are the same. I find it hard to trust much of anything else someone says after they’ve been pushing such a narrative. If I’m off base on the agenda behind the video, I think it shows they might need to broaden and clarify some of their positions and motives.

[Rossflyguy]

My reaction to this video is "MEH", just another special interest group (guides), pimping for the cause that benefits them economically the most without considering the negative impacts their desire brings. The majority of the video was screaming we want more hatchery fish, and that is at best a short term band-aid solution. At worst, it causes significant problems for natural production. They want all the surplus fish returned to the river because they think that will increase production, but the reality is due to the density dependent mortality factors mentioned by Fishtopher, that production goal will not be achieved. What they advocate is bad science, and they really should discuss their goals with some professional and academically qualified people before they proclaim something that is not true. The downfall of our salmon populations have very little to do with not enough hatchery production and everything to do with poor habitat and water management practices.


You’re not gonna have wild fish numbers pre dam when rivers have hundreds of miles of spawning ground blocked. Better hatchery practices are needed but if you’re gonna sit there and say these guides don’t know what they’re talking about I seriously doubt you’re on the water as much as they are.

[WLREDBAND]

You obviously didn't read this that was posted earlier. I think it answers your question.
"Just to be clear here, I am in NO WAY advocating for a suspension in hatchery production on our dam impacted rivers. There is no way for that to happen, even if additional habitat and water management practices improve (which I do support). Hatchery production MUST continue on these rivers. I am also in NO WAY advocating for the return of surplus stock hatchery fish being returned to the river, as James wants. That is a scientifically undefensible position, due to scientifically documented density dependent mortality and limited spawning habitat issues. Simply put, returning ALL surplus hatchery fish to the river is a BAD idea for a large variety of reasons as briefly discussed above. Any given stretch of our altered rivers only has the ability to spawn and rear a certain limited number of fish, and we are likely at that maximum level right now. Dumping more surplus fish back will NOT increase the number of salmon as claimed by James, and that is bad biological science that I DO NOT support.

In regards to how much I fish, and the implication that guides "know more" you are obviously mis-informed and have no clue to who I am and what guides actually "know". And I'll also offer you the same challenge I offered Mark, earlier: "When you're ready to discuss the scientific issues, let me know, because both Fishtopher and myself will eat you for lunch since we both have academic and professional backgrounds in natural resources management".
Enuf said.


You’re not gonna have wild fish numbers pre dam when rivers have hundreds of miles of spawning ground blocked. Better hatchery practices are needed but if you’re gonna sit there and say these guides don’t know what they’re talking about I seriously doubt you’re on the water as much as they are."

[winxp_man]

Just to be clear here, I am in NO WAY advocating for a suspension in hatchery production on our dam impacted rivers. There is no way for that to happen, even if additional habitat and water management practices improve (which I do support). Hatchery production MUST continue on these rivers. I am also in NO WAY advocating for the return of surplus stock hatchery fish being returned to the river, as James wants. That is a scientifically undefensible position, due to scientifically documented density dependent mortality and limited spawning habitat issues. Simply put, returning ALL surplus hatchery fish to the river is a BAD idea for a large variety of reasons as briefly discussed above. Any given stretch of our altered rivers only has the ability to spawn and rear a certain limited number of fish, and we are likely at that maximum level right now. Dumping more surplus fish back will NOT increase the number of salmon as claimed by James, and that is bad biological science that I DO NOT support.


Not saying you did. Just adding to the thinking pool of reality that we are facing in these rivers. And that you are right to say the rivers can only sustain so much in terms of spawning and habitat for rearing young fish. Fact still remains that over all if we look at the American alone.... This river lost 90%+ of its natural spawning grounds with the damn being put in place where it was.

As for habitat restoration I was pointing out the fact that adding more rock on top of the old river bed does nothing but help create a level river once high water does happen. We are acting like God thinking we know how to restore a river when we blocked it in the first place, and now stopping its natural flow that would clear itself out in a natural way, so far it sure does not seem to be working well. Nature knows best when left alone. But with dams in place its hard for nature to make it happen. And it seems most dont know how to make it work in my opinion and with the .gov making it harder to fix it does not help either.

[WLREDBAND]

Here is a great and easily understood description on density dependence and why it's a bad idea to let excessive numbers of fish spawn in limited habitat areas as NCGASA advocates for.
"Competition for limited resources and the concept of density dependence: Within a given watershed, there is a limited amount of food resources and habitats suitable to provide shelter from predators and water currents (which partially determine metabolic rates). If resources are abundant or there is little competition from other fish, all steelhead within a river or stream should be able to find feeding territories, ample food resources, and shelter; these fish will have high probabilities of survival in freshwater and at sea due to the size advantage gained from greater feeding opportunities. However, if resources and suitable habitats become limited and the number of rearing juveniles too great, there will be competition for the food and shelter that is available. As a result, all fish within the community will not be able to survive and reach critical size requirements for survival at sea. As the population of the community is curbed by competition for available resources and shelter, “carrying capacity” is reached in which the size of the fish population for a given area inhibits the population’s potential for growth (density dependence). While density dependence occurs mainly within freshwater environments, it has also been demonstrated to a lesser degree in the open ocean (Quinn 2005)."

[Fishtopher]

Heard from a very reliable resource that the hatchery is releasing the smolts way to early, another hatchery screwup! These fish should be released in April not February. The smolts aren’t even done with the smolting phase and are not programmed yet that the American River is their birthing place. So now these released smolts are either getting lost in the system, or getting diseased such as Ich (Ichthyophthirius multifiliis) and dying or turning into striper bait.

To call it a hatchery screwup is totally incorrect. I can't speak directly for the American, but these decisions are likely due to recommendations by groups like the HSRG who want to limit the impacts of hatchery fish on wild stocks while still producing enough fish for all the stakeholders. You can't just dump millions of smolts in the river at the same time and not expect them to impact one another. I'd rather have fish released in February when turbidity is up and temperatures are down than release them in May or June. Diseases like ich are directly tied to high water temperatures so releasing in February would actually reduce disease risk. While decreased turbidity reduces predation. Increased straying is definitely a possibility, but those fish would still be entering the ocean fishery and some of those would still be returning to the hatchery. Again, without knowing the American specifically, my hunch is that survival for smolts released in February would be higher than them being released in May or June.


You’re not gonna have wild fish numbers pre dam when rivers have hundreds of miles of spawning ground blocked. Better hatchery practices are needed but if you’re gonna sit there and say these guides don’t know what they’re talking about I seriously doubt you’re on the water as much as they are.

Any reasonable person realizes that we will never have wild fish numbers comparable to pre-dam and hatchery intervention is needed. Incorporating science like the HSRG recommends is attempting to better hatchery practices, that is the whole purpose of the group.

There is no arguing with the guides over numbers of the early 2000s. They were extremely high and it may simply have been an anomaly. If you look at the longer trend, the recent numbers in the Central Valley aren't out of the ordinary of what was observed in the past. Rather than talking about how we are failing, we should be trying to identify the conditions that led to the boom of the early 2000s. Salmon are a cyclical species so you often see these big boom/bust cycles. I'm not sure that the numbers of the early 2000s are sustainable. It's interesting that we have not seen a similar boom to the early 2000s since the 1950s which is how far escapement estimates go back. In fact, that big boom of 2003 may have been a factor in the near collapse of the fishery in 2007 due to the density dependent factors I spoke of earlier.

Managing Chinook is extremely difficult because they have a life history that spans a very large area in very different environments. In addition you have multiple year classes mixed at any given time which further compounds the difficulty.

[ycflyfisher]

Interesting, but I have to say I found it hard to trust after the numerous comments about hatchery salmon being identical to wild salmon. I definitely think they hit on some important issues though, but the pro hatchery marketing kind of muddied the message in my opinion. There were a few claims that I’d love to hear more about, and from other sources: that wild and hatchery salmon had already interbred to the point of not being any different, and that all wild salmon in the Central Valley were eliminated by the drought. The point about salmon being a massive part of the entire ecosystem certainly has powerful merit, and no question that our water policies have been very hard on the salmon.

Jason,

I think you're wise to ask questions about the "facts" in this video. I hope everyone else is doing the same.

The drought did not extirpate all the wild salmonids in the CV. Both Butte and Deer Creek for example, host wild spring runs that are not supported or supplemented by artificial propagation. What Jimmy Stone and his band of guides want you to believe is not true. The reduction in Spring fish produced at the Feather (i.e. the Feather becoming a conservation facility for springers that Stone also bashes) is a measure to reduce genetic risk for the aforementioned self-sustaining populations. The years of prolonged drought were hard on those fish, but the notion that they disappeared is not true.

The notion that wild fish and hatchery fish have the same genetics is also not true. Keep in mind the context Stone attempts to sell this statement in; he tries to apply this to rivers in WA and CA and he's applying this as a template to all rivers.

What would be a true statement is that in MOST CV rivers there is what I'd term significant homogenization of genetics and it crosses over to adjacent watersheds. This is due to the fact on severely truncated rivers of the CV streamborn fish have no temporal or spatial separation from hatchery fish that elect to spawn in basin. Unless you can somehow significantly reduce or totally stop hatchery fish from having spawning interactions with wild fish, hatchery fish are always going to have a strong influence on the genetics of streamborn fish. This is why there's an emphasis to replace American River steelhead (AR fish exhibits Eel River genetics) broodstock with another stock that more similar the CV O. Mykiss stocks. The Moke fish exhibited Eel genetics also at the time Jenn Neilsen did her genetics study, but approximately 10 years or so of continuous out of basin transfers from the Feather facility and Moke fish were deemed to be most genetically similar to Feather fish as of 2015-2016ish.

It would take multiple posts over several pages to even begin to address everything in this 38 minute video that raises questions, so I'm just going to throw out a few facts that shed light on all the things Stone is NOT telling you:

First, Stone's premise is that the root cause for the decline since 2002 can be attributed to two things: diversion and HSRG. They place blame on HSRG not once but twice before they even attempt to define what HSRG is. When they do "attempt" to define what HSRG is they make HRSG out to be a piscatorial hit squad that treats all hatchery fish like Adolf Hitler treated jewish people. This isn't even a half truth. HRSG is an abbreviation for Hatchery Scientific Review Group. HSRG is a congressionally appointed group of ecology professionals that were tasked with evaluating the impacts and risks hatchery fish have on wild fish while also considering that hatcheries play a legitimate and important role in meeting harvest and productions goals on impaired watersheds.

Stone has a grand total of TWO issues with HSRG: Reduction in hatchery production and retention of unspawned hatchery fish. He throws HSRG under the bus for this.

What he's not telling you is that all the other things HRSG has done. HRSG has made a myriad of changes first in WA, then on the Columbia and OR watersheds, and then for every mitigation facility in the state of CA except Warm Springs. These changes first involved evaluating everything every facility was doing and a myriad of reccommendations on what they should be doing. These changes involved everything from facility inadequacies to broodstock selection, handling and processing, to GMPs, to pathogen management, to developing protocols for developing run composition and others things that were MISSING from several of our facilities. Virtually every aspect of hatchery operation was evaluated. This was a hugely beneficial process. You can read every one of these reports here:

http://cahatcheryreview.com/

The big kicker of what Stone is NOT telling you: The HRSG got to CA last and did NOT even publish their reccommendations for California until June 2012 and the CFW DID NOT adopt these until either 2014 or 2015. I recall it happened in 2014, but Anna Kastner who is the Manager for the Feather Hatchery thinks it happened in 2015. The retention of hatchery fish and the reduction in fish production that Stone is assigning blame to and is stating caused the decline FROM 2002 DID NOT HAPPEN until the fall of 2014 or 2015 take your pick. Anna offered to verify and get back to me, but I didn't want to waste her time. When I was explaining to her why I wanted to know when this occurred she interrupted me and said "let me guess Willie, you just watched Unspawned."

Anna then spent a lot more of her time (I didn't ask) explaining how the state does NOT sell fish for profit. Instead of paying a local processor to render and process the fish before they're given to local charities, they went with a processor that picks up the fish for free and distributes said fish to various charities and tribes along the west coast. What the charities do with those donated fish is their own concern. No one is selling 300 lbs let alone 30000+ salmon out of 2 stand up coolers as Stone would have you and everyone else believe. IMO Unspawned is 38 minutes of stir-fried, artificially propigated horseshit.

Stone is hoping people pony up the cash prior asking questions or doing any fact checking. If I were a guide who is supporting this dude and his cooked up conclusions, I'd cut bait.

[ycflyfisher]

There is no arguing with the guides over numbers of the early 2000s. They were extremely high and it may simply have been an anomaly. If you look at the longer trend, the recent numbers in the Central Valley aren't out of the ordinary of what was observed in the past. Rather than talking about how we are failing, we should be trying to identify the conditions that led to the boom of the early 2000s. Salmon are a cyclical species so you often see these big boom/bust cycles. I'm not sure that the numbers of the early 2000s are sustainable. It's interesting that we have not seen a similar boom to the early 2000s since the 1950s which is how far escapement estimates go back. In fact, that big boom of 2003 may have been a factor in the near collapse of the fishery in 2007 due to the density dependent factors I spoke of earlier.

Managing Chinook is extremely difficult because they have a life history that spans a very large area in very different environments. In addition you have multiple year classes mixed at any given time which further compounds the difficulty.

I don't know why it happened. Everyone I asked about it while it was happening attributed to a long streak of favorable conditions in the salt, which led to insane marine survival. Unfortunately I'm fairly certain it wasn't anything we were doing inland that could be repeated. In the early 2000s, on the Feather they didn't have the second set of raceways so they simply dumped the Mykiss into the river to make room for the fall Chinooks in November. It was typical that they'd have tens of thousands of tiny Mykiss swimming back into the hatchery a few days after they started dumping them and also seeking refuge on the Yuba. It was a wild ride while it lasted though. Glad you decided to jump back into the discussion.

[avidangler]

CA wants to eliminate all non-native fish......Stripers, Shad, all Bass....etc.

:D Haha good luck with that

[WLREDBAND]

Willie, thanks for your responses as I always enjoy reading comments from academically and professionally qualified people on difficult and complex fishery management issues. I wish more of those individuals would join in the discussion, but I understand their reasons for non-participation due to the toxic environment and personal insults that sometimes rears its ugly head here.
<<< If I were a guide who is supporting this dude and his cooked up conclusions, I'd cut bait.>>>
A short time ago, when James started getting active on internet/social media, I actually looked into joining and donating some money since they sounded like an organization I could support. However, after some research on topics such as C&R for wild steelhead, and hatchery production to the detriment of wild populations, I came to the conclusion of "no way Jose". After watching "Unspawned" I now know that I made the right decision to not join/donate. Their political goals simply do not support my personal beliefs as a fly angler.

[Rossflyguy]

Willie, thanks for your responses as I always enjoy reading comments from academically and professionally qualified people on difficult and complex fishery management issues. I wish more of those individuals would join in the discussion, but I understand their reasons for non-participation due to the toxic environment and personal insults that sometimes rears its ugly head here.
<<< If I were a guide who is supporting this dude and his cooked up conclusions, I'd cut bait.>>>
A short time ago, when James started getting active on internet/social media, I actually looked into joining and donating some money since they sounded like an organization I could support. However, after some research on topics such as C&R for wild steelhead, and hatchery production to the detriment of wild populations, I came to the conclusion of "no way Jose". After watching "Unspawned" I now know that I made the right decision to not join/donate. Their political goals simply do not support my personal beliefs as a fly angler.

For someone who talks about toxic environment and insults you should look in the mirror with that holier than thou rhetoric. Wow.

[WLREDBAND]

I can say the same thing about you. WOW!
I guess we're now even. Your turn now.

For someone who talks about toxic environment and insults you should look in the mirror with that holier than thou rhetoric. Wow.

[Rossflyguy]

I can say the same thing about you. WOW!
I guess we're now even. Your turn now.

Riiiiight.