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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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...

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by winxp_man

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.

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by STEELIES/26c3

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...

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

I'm not impressed...

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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.

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......

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!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JasonB

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.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rossflyguy

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.

---

"