Does anyone actually have a link about this supposed "Fed" reduction in mitigation hatchery production? I don't recall any of this making it past the draft stages and don't recall anything that was applicable to mitigation facilities in CA.
Member
Does anyone actually have a link about this supposed "Fed" reduction in mitigation hatchery production? I don't recall any of this making it past the draft stages and don't recall anything that was applicable to mitigation facilities in CA.
Member
Right about Hatcheries wrong about Nuke plants... 50 % = Fail
Member
I was being sarcastic. Where does that put me now?Originally Posted by Frank Alessio
Member
!00% Correct = A+ Sorry My Bad....
Senior Member
Okay I'm braced! I still believe that habitat degradation has a significantly greater impact on salmonid sustainability than fly fishermen. I don't which to minimize the effect that humans have on wildlife, but when you take into account the population of the bay area compared to fly fishermen there is a significant difference in numbers. Therefore, those that don't fish (any kind!) damage the environment too, and there are many. Now I don't know for sure but I am reasonably sure bay area water is not from desalinization. Seems I once read about John Muirs outrage over the construction of Hetch-Hetchy. I'm sure someone will soon educate me.
Member
All good!
Forum Godfather
Habitat....
IMHO, negative impacts of habitat degradation due to human activities isn't hard to recognize but since fly fisherman are part of human activities and we carry out many more activities that're not related to fly fishing, we contribute to degradation, as much as anyone else (direct and/or indirect).
Altho, I'm fairly sure that there're no active desal plants in the Bay Area yet, there are several in the proposed stages. For now, EBMUD draws their water from Hetch Hetchy (?), Mokelumne River, the Sacramento River at/near the Sacramento water Districts pumping station and local sources. A couple of the more prominent problems with implementing desal in this state is 1) the level of objections to potential side affects of these projects and 2) the high costs involved. As a result, most projects are proposed as public private partnerships. This has, also, become a point of contention. Seems like there's so many objections to projects of any type, that we're not likely to see any of them implemented. That's why I made the comment that it probably won't happen in my lifetime in my original post.
Last edited by Darian; 11-26-2010 at 11:12 PM.
"America is a country which produces citizens who will cross the ocean to fight for democracy but won't cross the street to vote."
Author unknown
Member
I agree. I just do not know why you would limit it to fly fishermen only. Sport fishermen overall have had minimal impacts to salmon and steelhead runs except in a few specific instances.
Senior Member
You are right Covelo. I didn't intend to limit to just fly fishers. It's just that fly fishers are such a small sub-group of all fishers who are, in turn, a small sub-group compared to all those who live in areas that have an impact on resources vital to salmonids.
Darian you have a point. We are all culpable to one degree or another and, I suppose, we could trace that to the beginning of time. However, if fly (fishers) also participate in those "daily activities" and fish, does that make them one degree more harmful than those who don't fish. If so does the amount of time and money contributed to wildlife restoration and/or rehabilitative activities at least offset fishing? There seems, at least to me, a similarity to density of numbers, if you will. This is a discussion that could cut into copious amounts of fishing time.
I am deeply pessimistic that we will ever repair the damage that has been done.
Member
I'm surprised Covelo's point about the negative effect of hatchery fish on wild fish has not been discussed more. I hear the point that with people killing fish, if there are 3 hatchery fish in the river to every 1 wild fish then it is more likely a hatchery fish will be killed than a wild one, but isn't it true that hatchery fish often times inter-breed with wild fish and then pollute the wild gene pool, even further hurting the wild populations? This is why if we really care about the wild fish, the two steps to be taken would be to get rid of the hatchery fish, and then make it catch and release so the fishermen who want to bonk fish won't come.
Like someone mentioned, it is a tough issue because as fishermen it is tough enough to get behind an issue and unite, but with this one especially it varies so much individual to individual. Many want steelhead in the rivers, period, and couldn't care less if it has an adipose fin. I am on the opposite end of the spectrum. This isn't meant as snobbery, and is only personal, but for me fly fishing is about a wilderness experience and interacting with nature. I see hatchery fish as a human creation, and it just doesn't do anything for me to land a fish that is there because people spawned it, raised it in pens, and then released it into the river...that is way too much human involvement, to me it is fundamentally weird that we are carrying out the spawning process FOR the fish, I feel as if I might as well be at the put and take trout pond. I would much rather that money and effort that went into the hatchery operation be put into protecting wild fish spawning habitat....somewhere like the Russian River I choose to not even fish anymore because I am almost assured if I catch anything it will be a hatchery fish. This is a purely personal view, but I am curious if anyone else feels the same way (would rather catch 1 wild fish than 1000 hatchery fish).
It is very depressing to me that so many fish stocks are now so human supported. Even white sea bass in CA, redfish in Texas, and Snook in Florida have big hatchery operations, and our own striped bass that took off as wild populations after being introduced were supplemented with hatchery fish in the 90s I think it was. Will we get to the point that every fish population left is dependent on some hatchery somewhere where our money that could have been used to to help save the last of the wild stocks is instead going to help create more of these swimming human creations, and this action is still so supported and "appreciated"?
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks