Member
Very well posted Darian, I couldn't agree more on how it's probably too late for the majority of our rivers and that is pretty depressing. It seems the more humans are involved, whether trying to fix things or not, the bigger the problems are. There are so many different opinions out there on the best ways to salvage our rivers that it leads one to wonder what the future holds for said rivers.
Member
Those who think its too late for the state of CA Wild Steelhead don't get out enough. You don't need hatcheries on rivers with decent numbers of wild fish. The hatchery dumps are part of the problem. Especialy on rivers where they dump year after year after year. If nothing else this is the Antithesis(look that up)to the Idaho study. So to Darian's argument about these puppet Idaho studies...look a little deeper. Omg! I'm gonna have a coronary now. Somebody whack a hatchery fish for me so I can relax.Originally Posted by Fish Guru
: )
Last edited by Walter; 02-18-2013 at 12:23 PM. Reason: I kant speell
Member
Epic an environmental group just sued the state and NMFS over the Mad River hatchery.
http://www.courthousenews.com/2013/02/15/54900.htm
Senior Member
Shawn,
Thanks for the link. As Arte Johnson's character on Laugh-In used to say; "Verrrry interesting!"
Best,
Larry S
Forum Godfather
Litigation....
Hmmm, another lawsuit making the attorneys of yet another NGO very wealthy at our expense. The major issue (impact of hatchery operations and stocking fish) should be the only one contested. The others are housekeeping, involving permits/studies required that date back to times before passage of the ESA or NEPA. If past history is any indicator, each of the court will grant time for completion of the housekeeping issues. Then, maybe, a trial to resolve the real issue and we can get it settled (legally).
Wonder how long it'll be before the administrative issues are taken care of and a decision rendered on the real issue??? The government will probably stretch it out to 10 maybe 15 years??? After that, if the decision is to close the Mad River hatchery (and others?), maybe we'll get a chance to see whether the impacts of having no hatchery fish (Walters favorite idea) will work.
BTW, I notice by his latest post, that someone seems to've got his shorts in a bunch. Walter, step back and take a deeeeeeep breath. Now, exhale, slooooowwly...., and realize that this whole discussion was a troll; an exercise started by me some 7 pages back. Most everyone else saw it for just that. It's now hooked you twice. Once by an insulting PM you sent to me and now in your last post. At the risk of causing you a coronary, I'd say that you're a single minded, one trick pony!!! If you're going to continue to participate in this manner, maybe you should consider seeking some counseling....
Last edited by Darian; 02-18-2013 at 04:02 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
Bonehead. Numbskull. A spade is a spade Darian. Go on and get it over with and stop confusing people with the same nonsense that screwed up the last generation of fishing. Many of your peers are so much more inspiring. Based on their supportive PM's to me, I think people are figuring it out for themselves. And you still don't get my point.Hmmm, another lawsuit making the attorneys of yet another NGO very wealthy at our expense. The major issue (impact of hatchery operations and stocking fish) should be the only one contested. The others are housekeeping, involving permits/studies required that date back to times before passage of the ESA or NEPA. If past history is any indicator, each of the court will grant time for completion of the housekeeping issues. Then, maybe, a trial to resolve the real issue and we can get it settled (legally).
Wonder how long it'll be before the administrative issues are taken care of and a decision rendered on the real issue??? The government will probably stretch it out to 10 maybe 15 years??? After that, if the decision is to close the Mad River hatchery (and others?), maybe we'll get a chance to see whether the impacts of having no hatchery fish (Walters favorite idea) will work.
BTW, I notice by his latest post, that someone seems to've got his shorts in a bunch. Walter, step back and take a deeeeeeep breath. Now, exhale, slooooowwly...., and realize that this whole discussion was a troll; an exercise started by me some 7 pages back. Most everyone else saw it for just that. It's now hooked you twice. Once by an insulting PM you sent to me and now in your last post. At the risk of causing you a coronary, I'd say that you're a single minded, one trick pony!!! If you're going to continue to participate in this manner, maybe you should consider seeking some counseling....
And you haven't hooked jack....
Last edited by Walter; 02-19-2013 at 08:24 AM.
Member
Darian
f
I actually agree with the lawsuit You can read more about it here. http://www.wildcalifornia.org/wp-con...ver-Notice.pdf Theres tons of info in the citations in there.
I dont agree with the new management philosophy of mining the few remaining wild steelhead in a river to produce hatchery fish so that a few guides and a few locals can catch them. If you sat and talked to the guys that run a hatchery program using wild fish for brood stock like I have you would agree with this lawsuit to.
Member
Capturing wild fish for brood stock.....isn't that what is being done on the Chetco? Capture wild fish, take'em to a hatchery, raise the fry, release them as smolts back into the Chetco......?
Walter,
Should make you happy....we went and pestered MANY hatchery smolts on the Russian with 2wt and 3wt yesterday. We plan more education excursions in the near future.....the smolts education.
I see the value of BOTH views. However, NEITHER is a blanket solution! Local system deterioration MUST be the deciding factor as to the application, and how much, of either "solution". Until we REVERSE our enviriomental degradation and, at least, make the WATER non-lethal to the fish, we are ALL blowing smoke.
....lee s.
Member
Walter, i agree that hatcheries are not needed on rivers with decent numbers of wild fish, but the problem is that governing bodies don't agree with this for the most part. A common ground on what really needs to happen to fix things seems to be unattainable, and that's why the statement of it being too late for many rivers makes sense. I think it's too late for many rivers( not all) because the policies in place are rarely for the best interests of the fishery and are more directed at increased revenues or keeping the revenue stream flowing.
On a side note, the hatchery free Eel watershed has been seeing a revival of its steelhead and Salmon of late, but now this fishery faces a major hurdle as industrial pot farms are dumping tons of sediment and comtaminants into the rivers. Although the hatcheries aren't destroying this watershed, the policies that allow these pot farms to operate virtually unchecked are putting this watershed in imminent danger. I'm very surprised no one on this board is talking about the damge that is being done in a short amount of time.
And no worries Walter, I will do my best to whack the next hatchery fish I catch, that is about all that they are good for anyway...
Member
After reading that, I would have to agree with the lawsuit as well. I may not know what the best solution is, but it is safe to say that harvesting wild fish that are potential natural spawners to make hatchery rejects is not in the best interests of protecting the wild fish.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks