Shortened Salmon Season

[tcorfey]

The official word is out: California will have a very short chinook salmon season this year.

Because of historically low numbers of adult chinook salmon in the ocean — a lingering effect of the drought — West Coast fishery managers decided to severely restrict the upcoming California commercial salmon season. The decision was announced Tuesday at a meeting of the Pacific Fishery Management Council in Sacramento.

It will begin in May and June in the area from Pigeon Point in San Mateo County south to the Mexico border. Later in the summer, the area that includes San Francisco Bay, between Pigeon Point and Point Arena in Mendocino County, will be open for most of August and September, with a smaller section of the coast also open for part of October.

Farther north, the coastline between Point Arena and Horse Mountain (Humboldt County) will be open only in September, with a 3,000-fish quota, and areas farther north will be closed altogether.

The California recreational salmon fishery south of Eureka opened on schedule April 1, but certain areas will also close for part of the season until it ends in October.

Areas north of Horse Mountain and parts of southern Oregon will be closed this year to protect endangered Klamath River chinook salmon, which are at a record low. Other limits to the season protect endangered winter-run chinook from the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta system.

When populations are healthier, chinook salmon are among the most lucrative fisheries in the region, worth $22.7 million in California in 2013.

[Carl Blackledge]

I wish they would close it down for about 3-5 years....CB

[lee s.]

Why Carl?
Until they curtail and cease the environmental degradation and pollution NOTHING will change. A stick and a string are not the problem.
....lee s.

[Rollingcs]

That’s not the notice I got from F&W, it stated that it opens on April 4 from Pigeon Pt south, all other areas will be determined at a later meeting. Where did you see that?

[tcorfey]

San Francisco Chronicle

https://www.sfchronicle.com/local/environment/article/Bay-Area-salmon-season-is-expected-to-be-much-16016342.php

[Carl Blackledge]

Why Carl?
Until they curtail and cease the environmental degradation and pollution NOTHING will change. A stick and a string are not the problem.
....lee s.

Yea Lee your right lets just kill all that's left!

[Rossflyguy]

They need to make a punch card system that allows only a certain amount of fish caught per person or per season. No one really knows how much is harvested from the ocean and too many times I’ve heard people on Central Valley rivers catching 40-50 every season and giving them away to people they know. The laws aren’t followed and the guess work for how many are harvested are NEVER accurate. We either need more hatchery fish OR private hatcheries that could do a much better job at raising healthier fish. Unless dams are removed or more water is allotted for the river and not big AG these fish will never repopulate on their own. California politics clearly don’t care for fish and wildlife conservation. This is the reality. If anyone disagrees look at the yuba. No hatchery, cold water, no fishing pressure for the salmon yet the numbers that return there are dismal. I was told that the lower Yuba used to be called “Little Alaska” before permanently closing the take of salmon on that water. Chile and Argentina have no dams on their rivers (soon to be damed on a major river from what I hear) and HATCHERY kings thrive. I would be all for stricter laws for these fish. I still don’t know why coho aren’t raised in the sac, feather, or American. Wouldn’t that help the endangered species populations? Put less pressure on the kings if hatchery coho were allowed for take? So much not done correctly and the wrong people in charge are making the decisions.

[Rollingcs]

Looks like that article is for the Commercial Fleet, not sportfishing.

Im hoping they open it up above Pigeon a couple weeks after the April 3rd like they used to so the pressure comes off the southern part of the fishery.

Hopefully there's some fish to be caught !

[tcorfey]

The article was not all about commercial fishing it did say:
"The California recreational salmon fishery south of Eureka opened on schedule April 1, but certain areas will also close for part of the season until it ends in October."

[Rollingcs]

When I click that link all it talks about is the Commercial guys, that's why I commented on it.
Just tried again and that's what I got!

[Carl Blackledge]

They need to make a punch card system that allows only a certain amount of fish caught per person or per season. No one really knows how much is harvested from the ocean and too many times I’ve heard people on Central Valley rivers catching 40-50 every season and giving them away to people they know. The laws aren’t followed and the guess work for how many are harvested are NEVER accurate. We either need more hatchery fish OR private hatcheries that could do a much better job at raising healthier fish. Unless dams are removed or more water is allotted for the river and not big AG these fish will never repopulate on their own. California politics clearly don’t care for fish and wildlife conservation. This is the reality. If anyone disagrees look at the yuba. No hatchery, cold water, no fishing pressure for the salmon yet the numbers that return there are dismal. I was told that the lower Yuba used to be called “Little Alaska” before permanently closing the take of salmon on that water. Chile and Argentina have no dams on their rivers (soon to be damed on a major river from what I hear) and HATCHERY kings thrive. I would be all for stricter laws for these fish. I still don’t know why coho aren’t raised in the sac, feather, or American. Wouldn’t that help the endangered species populations? Put less pressure on the kings if hatchery coho were allowed for take? So much not done correctly and the wrong people in charge are making the decisions.

Ross,

I agree with most of what you said, however when the state claims there aren't very many fish left, why let anybody at all fish? Save what we have and perhaps start over with smarter people? There isn't any money in fishing for the state so why should they care? however there is big money in selling the water to the farmers....That the real problem here
Carl Blackledge

[lee s.]

You said a whole bunch there Carl...."selling the water." Our sticks and strings will never be the demise of the fisheries....environmental degradation and pollution WILL be. I'm all for C&R fishing only....but NO fishing is no where near a viable means to ever saving those fisheries.....AND the water grabbers would love to see us OFF the rivers to give them full rein.
....lee s.

[Rossflyguy]

Ross,

I agree with most of what you said, however when the state claims there aren't very many fish left, why let anybody at all fish? Save what we have and perhaps start over with smarter people? There isn't any money in fishing for the state so why should they care? however there is big money in selling the water to the farmers....That the real problem here
Carl Blackledge

I totally agree. That’s the thing, there isn’t very many fish left BECAUSE they’ve reduced the hatchery numbers and we have to pay for it. They’re trying to blame hatchery fish for no wild fish. Anyone who believes that isn’t hasn’t researched it enough. Remember all hatchery fish are descendants of wild fish. Let’s not pretend these fish were designed in a lab. They’ve reduced the numbers so there isn’t any reason to release more water for the few fish we have returning. So yes they sell the water to big AG. That’s the problem. Until that’s obvious and all fisherman are on the same team they’ll just keep driving a wedge between outdoorsmen who prefer to fish a specific way. At this point our Central Valley salmon fisheries is pretty much a put and take fishery. The sooner we realize this the quicker we can get things straightened out.

[Rossflyguy]

If any of you haven’t seen the video I’ve copied down below you should watch it. I’m a member of this organization and I’ve heard the recent numbers and salmon season recommended for the ocean. They should limit the river take to one as well this season.

https://youtu.be/P2QZuiRZGbw

[OceanSunfish]

All great points. Thanks for raising the issues again. Unfortunately, we could do a search in the archives here over the past 20 years and we'll find the same talking points repeated many times over. Until BuRec is held accountable to CVPIA and favorable legislation is allowed to continue to the elite few, no improvement (the "I" in CVPIA).

Fishing has just about been exterminated as a culture in CA.

BTW, take a look at the predictions for the Columbia River returns for 2021. Huge season about to get underway with Springers and will end with Coho in early October. Portand is even going to get a Summer Chinook season ahead of the Upriver Brights and Buoy 10.! CA cannot even conduct a quota system like Oregon. (Cannot or will not?)

[Rossflyguy]

All great points. Thanks for raising the issues again. Unfortunately, we could do a search in the archives here over the past 20 years and we'll find the same talking points repeated many times over. Until BuRec is held accountable to CVPIA and favorable legislation is allowed to continue to the elite few, no improvement (the "I" in CVPIA).

Fishing has just about been exterminated as a culture in CA.

BTW, take a look at the predictions for the Columbia River returns for 2021. Huge season about to get underway with Springers and will end with Coho in early October. Portand is even going to get a Summer Chinook season ahead of the Upriver Brights and Buoy 10.! CA cannot even conduct a quota system like Oregon. (Cannot or will not?)

Will not. A state considered ahead of the world in everything is clearly in denial.

[avidangler]

Mitigation hatcheries not doing their job on our valley rivers. It's a travesty. These streams have severe habitat degradation. The fish aren't coming back without supplementation.

[Andy]

fish aren't coming back without supplementation.

The Klamath has been "supplemented" with hatchery nookies for decades but the returns keep yo-yo'ing downwards. Should they release more and more and hope there is a number that works? Maybe the supplementation regime isn't working for reasons we don't understand. Is it because because hatchery fish are not on par with wild fish that evolved in a system over eons?

The Shasta River, pre Dwinnell Dam, saw 80,000 returning Chinook. Its a natural hatchery for fish populations that evolved over thousands of years to perfectly harmonize with the Shasta River's nuances. Then manifest destiny happened, conquer the west and all that progress. All the snowmelt is now impounded in Lake Shastina. The cold water springs below the dam are all impounded and run through 3 pastures before the unconsumed water, hot and cow shit tainted, enters the river. The Shasta Coho are now extirpated (37 returned this year), Summer Steelhead are gone, Springers gone, last year a pathetic 4000 chinook returned.

I, along with a few friends, formed Friends of the Shasta River because the potential of its natural capacity is still there. We are here because the state, despite trying for almost 3 decades, has not improved conditions enough to improve fish health. Problem is the Shasta's potential is held hostage by agriculture and business as usual will cease if they are forced to share the water. Fighting folks like Red Emmerson (owns the ranch with the prime springs), who specialize in resource extraction, is truly David vs. Goliath. We will eventually win but its going to be a long haul.

Point is I firmly believe in habitat not hatcheries. If hatchery fish were the solution this thread would not be here.

Andy Marx

[Rossflyguy]

The Klamath has been "supplemented" with hatchery nookies for decades but the returns keep yo-yo'ing downwards. Should they release more and more and hope there is a number that works? Maybe the supplementation regime isn't working for reasons we don't understand. Is it because because hatchery fish are not on par with wild fish that evolved in a system over eons?

The Shasta River, pre Dwinnell Dam, saw 80,000 returning Chinook. Its a natural hatchery for fish populations that evolved over thousands of years to perfectly harmonize with the Shasta River's nuances. Then manifest destiny happened, conquer the west and all that progress. All the snowmelt is now impounded in Lake Shastina. The cold water springs below the dam are all impounded and run through 3 pastures before the unconsumed water, hot and cow shit tainted, enters the river. The Shasta Coho are now extirpated (37 returned this year), Summer Steelhead are gone, Springers gone, last year a pathetic 4000 chinook returned.

I, along with a few friends, formed Friends of the Shasta River because the potential of its natural capacity is still there. We are here because the state, despite trying for almost 3 decades, has not improved conditions enough to improve fish health. Problem is the Shasta's potential is held hostage by agriculture and business as usual will cease if they are forced to share the water. Fighting folks like Red Emmerson (owns the ranch with the prime springs), who specialize in resource extraction, is truly David vs. Goliath. We will eventually win but its going to be a long haul.

Point is I firmly believe in habitat not hatcheries. If hatchery fish were the solution this thread would not be here.

Andy Marx


I think we all want wild fish but until the dams come down it’s just a wet dream. There’s not enough spawning habitat. The stuff on the American was blown out. Not saying some won’t be successful but you will never get the numbers back pre-dam

[avidangler]

The Klamath is a different ball of wax. Once those dams are removed I can't wait to see what happens! I'm all for habitat as well. But on Valley rivers such as the American and Feather rivers it is moot. Those rivers have great fishing for HATCHERY salmon 20 years ago. What happened? I know there are purists on here but some of us still like to eat a fish now and again. The Feather used to be phenomenal. I keep seeing license fees go up,and as it gets more expensive to travel,get lodging,pay for gear,and everything that goes into fishing,we get less and less opportunity. What happens when you start eliminating hatchery programs? More pressure on wild stocks. I know we can't throw a blanket on fisheries management. I'm talking about mitigation hatcheries,and yes,that means more hatchery plants.

[Fishtopher]

Spawning habitat is not the limiting factor in the Sacramento Valley or the Klamath system. In-river conditions during outmigration are the main barrier to salmon recovery probably followed by ocean conditions. Improve in-river conditions via habitat improvements and a flow and temperature regime conducive to salmonids and you will begin to see populations rebound.

My hunch is we are seeing the effects of the warm water 'blob' resulting in higher mortality in younger age classes of fish. Chinook runs are down in their entire range, this is not a localized problem to California. Remember, we aren't that far removed from near record runs in 2012-2013. We are unfortunately on a downcycle that hopefully will get better before it gets worse.

[avidangler]

Spawning habitat is not the limiting factor in the Sacramento Valley or the Klamath system. Wait,what??? Between the water diversions,dammed up traditional spawning areas,and what the Army Corps of Engineers has done to those rivers,as well as 5 dams on the Klamath,a major Dam on the Trinity,how can you back up that statement? No doubt there are other factors but the MAIN factor is severe habitat degradation on our streams. That,is no hunch. It's backed by science.

[Fishtopher]

Wait,what??? Between the water diversions,dammed up traditional spawning areas,and what the Army Corps of Engineers has done to those rivers,as well as 5 dams on the Klamath,a major Dam on the Trinity,how can you back up that statement? No doubt there are other factors but the MAIN factor is severe habitat degradation on our streams. That,is no hunch. It's backed by science.

I think you've misinterpreted what I was trying to get at. There is no question that spawning habitat has been affected by the dams, however, juvenile rearing habitat has been disproportionately affected compared to spawning habitat. I do not know of any regulated river in CA where the spawning habitat is fully exploited. Too many spawning fish can actually cause problems in certain systems as the carrying capacity for juveniles has been reached. Juvenile rearing habitat is the limiting factor for almost all salmonid populations, including in CA. Improve rearing conditions, and you will have more fish available for harvest.

Keep in mind this perspective is coming from the current situation of rivers within CA. Whether we like it or not, most dams are not going to be removed. I am very excited to see the Klamath dams come down as I think we will see an immediate impact in the entire basin due to the disease issue in the Klamath. Losing >90% of your juveniles before they hit the ocean is not conducive to future returns.

[Andy]

Losing >90% of your juveniles before they hit the ocean is not conducive to future returns.

True that, absent C. Shasta juveniles in the Klamath would at least have a chance getting to/in the ocean.

Bummed for limited Klamath salmon season I was just figuring that up from the mouth fishery out.

The Shasta River was the biggest producer for the Klamath system. Its spawning habitat is hammered by agricultural water use practices. Fall Chinook come in late enough to get it done down low in the system, though even they suffer as one life history component used the upper river and reared over summer, that habitat is severly impaired by temp, low oxygen and e. coli. The same upper river rearing habitat is where steelies and coho would over summer but fish don't do well in hot sewage water.

Bummer about valley streams. Though hatchery fish put a bandaid on the habitat problem it is still a problem, they got to get through the delta and that habitat is arguably compromised.

I landed a Feather hatchery springer a couple years back on a striper trip, it pained me to have to release it as it was bleeding badly and looked so tasty. Guess the otters gotta eat too.

Andy Marx

[ycflyfisher]

Just some facts to go along with the blame placing going on in this thread.

Tim's original post is an action of the PFMC. The state DFW has no jurisdiction or influence over what the PFMC does with offshore salmon.

The Feather along with the Sac and all tribs of the Sac-SJ Delta, experienced a near total ~85%, multi-year collapse in population abundance over the 2007-2009 seasons. Is it really realistic to expect a full rebound from a collapse of that magnitude?

In the 9 years of pre-collapse to collapse emigration data for the Feather, the Feather produces on average, over 10 million streamborn Chinook emigrants per season. I have no idea where this notion that instream Chinook production for a river like the Feather is a number so low, it's negligible. It's definitely not congruent with the facts.

Adult escapement for the Feather from 2010 on, compares pretty favorably to any previous 10 year period for which there's data except the 2001-2006 period which we'll discuss in more detail, because we now know WHY those boom years happened. This science was published in 2018, I wasn't made aware of it until last Dec. That said, I'm shocked that the last ten years is comparable to decades past because we've had multiple consecutive years of drought leading to poor conditions for emigrants inland and the same for marine conditions from 2010 on to the present.

The LF typically produces more Chinook emigrants than does the HF at about at about a 55-45 split on average with the exception of one year where the HF ~doubled the LF production. Chinooks produced in the HF are ~10mm larger on avg than their cohorts that emerge from the gravel in the LF. Most Feather Chinooks start migration soon after emergence (prior to being mature enough to undergo smoltification) with ~90% of LF fish and ~70% of HF fish hitting the respective screw traps at less than 50mm. This is 'normal' for the Feather and the A. The emigrants also in general, don't get larger to the same extent as the emergence window progresses like we do see happening on a river like the Trinity.

Streamborn Chinooks were slightly more prone to spawn in the HF than were fish of hatchery origin.

There was an absolutely bizarre, upstream spatial shift in spawning site selection by adult Chinooks post collapse and we've been left with a HF channel that is now largely devoid of spawning salmon in most seasons. Pre-collapse we typically had Chinooks digging in every riff down to Palm by the end of the 3rd week in Oct even in a below avg escapement season. That simply does not happen any longer.

Hatchery production on the Feather has not declined over time(see the first graph on the posted clip). It actually increased by about 30% going into the years of the collapse. Target production for the Feather is 6M.

The second graph shows what really created the boom years on the Feather: Survival rates from emergence to escapement of streamborn Chinooks that was literally ~350-450% greater than it has been in the years after the collapse. In short, the Feather has lost most of its capacity to produce streamborn fish that survive to escapement compared to the boom years.

[ycflyfisher]

I think there's some definitive conclusions that can be drawn:

1-Churning out millions of fake hatchery fish didn't stop the collapse from occuring.
2-Reliance on hatcheries to restore abundance has been an epic level failure. As Andy mentioned, we wouldn't be having this discussion it it was working.
3- Blame placing in lieu of expending the effort to understand what the problems/challenges really are, won't lead to any viable solutions that produce favorable results.
4- The Feather has the capacity to produce far more streamborn Chinooks than most think it does.

Also, the run comp data for graph 2 was derived from Strontium isotope analysis for years 2002 to 2010 and constant fractional marking for 2011 and 2012. It would be nice to have similar comp data for years prior to the boom years to see if streamborn escapement ran at similar rates but that data wasn't presented. I know escapement data was not available for 1998 and 1999 for the Feather.

I've never really thought that enough isolation was present on a truncated river like the Feather for local adaption to occur and that streamborn fish were simply the progeny of hatchery fish that elected to spawn in basin. I don't think that's a safe assumption at this point.

I do also think the spatial shift in spawning site selection that happened post collapse is a huge contributor to WHY we're where we are at now.

[WLREDBAND]

Thanks for the insightful post, YC. I'm glad we have two very senior and qualified fish biologists (You and Fishtopher) still posting here giving scientific rationales for what we're all observing. Wish you both would both post more often here, but I do understand your "reluctance" for obvious reasons. I really like this part:
1-Churning out millions of fake hatchery fish didn't stop the collapse from occuring.
2-Reliance on hatcheries to restore abundance has been an epic level failure. As Andy mentioned, we wouldn't be having this discussion it it was working.
3- Blame placing in lieu of expending the effort to understand what the problems/challenges really are, won't lead to any viable solutions that produce favorable results.
4- The Feather has the capacity to produce far more streamborn Chinooks than most think it does.

Especially point #3. Since that seems to be what happens here the most.

[Rossflyguy]

“1-Churning out millions of fake hatchery fish didn't stop the collapse from occuring”

Fake? They taste pretty real to me. Those “fake” king salmon seem to be doing pretty good in Chile and Argentina. There’s no hatchery on the lower yuba and it’s not pumping out salmon either. I’m no scientist but something about dams seems to be an issue.

[Rossflyguy]

Also, if we compare the Feather river hatchery to the Moke hatchery it’s pretty clear who’s more successful at doing it right. EBMUD actually wants salmon returns versus the way it’s being done by the other hatcheries. Not saying they don’t care but there’s more backing for the Moke hatchery it seems. And the 6 million released is a pony show. Correct me if I’m wrong but isn’t the survival rate less than 1%? I think there is some data that shows the decline of salmon AND striper when those massive water pumps were fired up. I’ll try looking for that stat but it’s pretty interesting. I couldnt imagine how many smolt get sucked into those pumps.

[ycflyfisher]

Fake? They taste pretty real to me.


I’d suggest that how hatchery Chinooks taste probably isn’t the best metric for whether ‘fake’ is an appropriate descriptor. I’d suggest that the mountain of peer reviewed science that details how hatchery products reduce fitness via spawning introgression, impact streamborn abundance via intra- and inter- species competition across all life stages, and a myriad of other means is perhaps a better, more tenable metric. Even though you could literally stack this science like it were multiple cords of firewood, I also think it’s rather naïve to think that we’ve identified all the means and vehicles that hatchery products can impact self-sustaining populations.



Those “fake” king salmon seem to be doing pretty good in Chile and Argentina.

I don’t know much about South American Chinooks but a quick google search reveals they were initially introduced multiple times (unsuccessfully) for recreational means and really didn’t establish until the Aquaculture industry succeeded (but gave up before the pops established) and the established pops expanded and these populations became self-sustaining. So yes these fish are derived from WA hatchery stock, but those South American Chinooks have been allowed to evolve in basin and have achieved a high degree of local adaptation, because there also isn’t a network of fish hatcheries on those rivers churning out millions of hatchery products annually. That’s the actual problem here (streamborn progeny of Hatchery products in the Sacto and it’s tribs can’t ever get to that level of local adaptation, along with the wild pops that have some measure of temporal or spacial separation (think Yuba River) but not complete isolation, being ground down constantly over time via exposure and negative interactions of all types with fake, rubber hatchery fish.

The goal for Hatchery reform in CA is actually more akin to creating an environs where what has happened in those SA Chinooks CAN happen here. Not trying to bag on you, but the fact you think this is a valid criticism of and not a ringing endorsement for hatchery reform, illustrates just how badly you fail to understand the nature of the problem or the goals of hatchery reform.



There’s no hatchery on the lower yuba and it’s not pumping out salmon either.

As Fishtopher mentioned, the Yuba follows similar trends to the other Sacto tribs, because the inland bottleneck @emigration is shared, as are marine conditions. Even though there’s no hatchery on the Yuba the genetic influence of hatcheries on other tribs is visibly present on the Yuba.



Also, if we compare the Feather river hatchery to the Moke hatchery it’s pretty clear who’s more successful at doing it right. EBMUD actually wants salmon returns versus the way it’s being done by the other hatcheries. Not saying they don’t care but there’s more backing for the Moke hatchery it seems.

I couldnt imagine how many smolt get sucked into those pumps.


I can see why you would think things are all rosy on the Moke IF you’re soley relying on main stream media for your information, but the peer reviewed science on the Moke paints a much bleaker picture: most of those boom years on the Moke in terms of adult escapement is largely a result of strays from other rivers showing up on the Moke; in critically dry to avg years survival from emergence (and for hatchery fish released in river) to the salt is effectively zero; highest survival for SJ trib fish actually occurs when those fish hit the screens at the pumping facilities and get a taxi ride to the bay, etc

https://afspubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/nafm.10063

I paid to read this article, but since you didn’t trust my input on Jimmy Stone’s Unspawned, maybe you’ll trust Moyle’s:

https://californiawaterblog.com/2018/08/21/science-the-delta-and-the-future-of-san-joaquin-salmon/

Moyle’s opinion on higher flows not positively impacting SJ salmon survival is a bit over the top, and there’s plenty of data that says survival increases if flows are high enough over a critical window.

His other talking points for the most part, I’m in agreement with.

Other aspects of Moke fish production and management might seem more ‘progressive’ than the Feather but that’s because the Moke has far more challenges and those actions need to be more progressive to make the Moke viable. It has nothing to do with caring more and EBMUD might foot the bill for operational costs, but the Moke facility is owned, operated and staffed by the state.

The Moke facility raises 2 fish. Fall Chinooks and O. Mykiss. The Moke has had chronic and ongoing Mykiss production problems and actually has for years, imported hatchery Mykiss from the Feather hatchery. So, I wouldn't agree that the Moke facility is golden when it has more challenges and actually has had to rely of the Feather facility to produce half the species they support.

[ycflyfisher]

Thanks for the insightful post, YC. I'm glad we have two very senior and qualified fish biologists (You and Fishtopher) still posting here giving scientific rationales for what we're all observing. Wish you both would both post more often here, but I do understand your "reluctance" for obvious reasons. I really like this part:
1-Churning out millions of fake hatchery fish didn't stop the collapse from occuring.
2-Reliance on hatcheries to restore abundance has been an epic level failure. As Andy mentioned, we wouldn't be having this discussion it it was working.
3- Blame placing in lieu of expending the effort to understand what the problems/challenges really are, won't lead to any viable solutions that produce favorable results.
4- The Feather has the capacity to produce far more streamborn Chinooks than most think it does.

Especially point #3. Since that seems to be what happens here the most.

Thanks for saying thanks. I'm actually just an angler, not a fisheries or ecology professional.

I've been napalmed on this forum so many times, I've lost count and I don't chime in very often due to that, but due to the fact there's only 24hrs in a day.

I do agree with your sentiment though. By my count since I've been here, I've seen about 9??? fisheries pros, one genetics pro and one Alluvial geomorphologist chased from this forum. Pretty sad to say the least.

[WLREDBAND]

I guessed wrong on your profession. You are one well informed dude though, so props to ya! I guess that means we only have one fisheries/ecology professional here. That's somewhat sad. Hopefully, Fishtopher doesn't leave like all the others.


Thanks for saying thanks. I'm actually just an angler, not a fisheries or ecology professional.

I've been napalmed on this forum so many times, I've lost count and I don't chime in very often due to that, but due to the fact there's only 24hrs in a day.

I do agree with your sentiment though. By my count since I've been here, I've seen about 9??? fisheries pros, one genetics pro and one Alluvial geomorphologist chased from this forum. Pretty sad to say the least.

[Rossflyguy]

WLREDBAND, I’ll read those articles you shared later BUT sounds like you’re against hatchery raised fish just based off the information you choose to read. Have you read any statistics about the fall of fisheries with the coming of dams? There’s no paper that could absolutely prove salmon numbers would climb if you took hatcheries away and kept the current dams in place. You’d have to cut all salmon fishing off just to sustain a “wild” population with the little spawning habitat and poor water conditions. We all want wild fish but if you like water coming out of you faucet on a regular basis then dams aren’t coming down. I realized that awhile back and I prefer hatcheries to have better practices than getting rid of them. That’s the reality.

[WLREDBAND]

I think the reality is, you have me confused with someone else. I'm not against hatchery fish in the appropriate circumstances. Just for the record.


WLREDBAND, I’ll read those articles you shared later BUT sounds like you’re against hatchery raised fish just based off the information you choose to read. Have you read any statistics about the fall of fisheries with the coming of dams? There’s no paper that could absolutely prove salmon numbers would climb if you took hatcheries away and kept the current dams in place. You’d have to cut all salmon fishing off just to sustain a “wild” population with the little spawning habitat and poor water conditions. We all want wild fish but if you like water coming out of you faucet on a regular basis then dams aren’t coming down. I realized that awhile back and I prefer hatcheries to have better practices than getting rid of them. That’s the reality.

[JasonB]

I guessed wrong on your profession. You are one well informed dude though, so props to ya! I guess that means we only have one fisheries/ecology professional here. That's somewhat sad. Hopefully, Fishtopher doesn't leave like all the others.

In my personal opinion, the knowledge base of a handful of folks here is what keeps this forum worth sifting through all the BS. We all have plenty of well intentioned opinions, but it’s really valuable to be able to learn from those who actually know a bit about what they are talking about. I would include several “non professional” members here in that category too, fwiw, but I really appreciate those who have real data to support the their opinions. I once heard Tim Rajeff share a funny quote that I think rings pretty true time and again: “give any angler 15 minutes with no action, and they will automatically begin to develop a theory”. Sometimes those theories have merit, sometimes they don’t.

[Rossflyguy]

I think the reality is, you have me confused with someone else. I'm not against hatchery fish in the appropriate circumstances. Just for the record.

Well sir, with dams blocking hundreds of miles of spawning habitat on rivers hatcheries are the appropriate circumstance until those fish can reach their historical spawning grounds. Just like most lakes I’m sure you fish 99% probably are stocked or were from hatchery genetics. You seem like you’re against hatcheries. Calling salmon raised for several weeks in a hatchery “fake” when they spend 2-6 yrs on they’re own in the ocean to later run hundreds of miles of river seems far from fake to me. But we all have an opinion and I stand with you for wild salmon cause that’s the end goal.

[ycflyfisher]

I guess that means we only have one fisheries/ecology professional here.

By my count, there's 4 more that chime in very infrequently.