Hatcheries vs. No Hatcheries

[luckydog]

Hey lucky,

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

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

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

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

It's a tragic story.

[tallguy]

No hatchery fish!

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

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

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

[JayDubP]

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

[luckydog]

No hatchery fish!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[jbird]

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

[cjlang]

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

[Darian]

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

Keep the hatcheries going....

[mr. 3 wt.]

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

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

[Mike R]

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

[mikel]

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

-Mike