Hoorah for Hatchery Fish

[Randy Lee]

Another fine mess we got ourselves into Ollie!

[Ralph]

"In other words, human intervention has made the habitat left on the lower Sac and Yuba much more fish friendly, damn near aquarium-like, than it ever was prior to human intervention."

May I suggest you are out of your mind. 150 years ago the fish were numbered in the hundreds of thousands if not millions, today a few thousand make a "good" run and up to 90% of those are genetically altered hatchery fish. The rivers used to be braided and densely wooded. Cellulose debris was abundant as was the distribution of substrate size ranging from grains of sand to giant boulders. Swamp-like sloughs, backwaters, and floodplains created vital habitat for smolt rearing. To suggest we have created salmonid shangri-la by building dams, turning the hydrograph on its head, straightening rivers, destroying flood plains, removing mate selection, and reducing genetic diversity by an order of magnitude sounds like something co-written by the Army Corp of engineers and PG&E as they try to sell an ignorant public on an ill advised boon doggle.

You need to get your head out of your books and open your eyes. It would be worth your while to visit some of the un dammed rivers in Alaska where only wild fish roam (by the tens of millions) to get some sort of sense of what a healthy eco system looks like. Your words are dangerous if even a single person is swayed by your ignorant ramblings.

[Tfisher]

No Ralph, in a nutshell, what I'm saying is exactly what I said: The once predominantly anadromous O. Mykiss of the lower Sac and the Yuba adapted to more favorable inriver conditions (not hatchery conditions) by becoming predominantly riverine (non-anadromous).

Now if you don't agree with that, please take the time to explain to everyone why it is that you think that both the lower Sac and Yuba have abundant, wild populations of resident bows, but virtually no wild steelhead.

I didn't wanted to enter this discussion, but do want to answer your question and provide a correction to the statement that O. Mykiss in the L. Sacramento or Lower Yuba "adapted" to "more favorable" in river conditions. I believe you are confusing the principles of fitness and selection with the term "adapted."

It's scientifically incorrect to state that O. mykiss somehow chooses its resident form over its anadramous form when confronted with "more favorable" conditions. What is true is that the selection pressure on the anadramous forms is decreasing their fitness in relation to the resident form. Thus, using your example of O. mykiss is the Lower Yuba, some of the progeny of O. mykiss leave to complete an anadramous life cycle, however when confronted with the construct of the degraded delta ecosystem/ocean conditions etc. are never heard from again. Because they do not return to spawn (or return in such low numbers) to pass down their fitness to the next generation, those that remain (the in river form) are those that we continue to see propagate.

[TonyMuljat]

I didn't wanted to enter this discussion, but do want to answer your question and provide a correction to the statement that O. Mykiss in the L. Sacramento or Lower Yuba "adapted" to "more favorable" in river conditions. I believe you are confusing the principles of fitness and selection with the term "adapted."

It's scientifically incorrect to state that O. mykiss somehow chooses its resident form over its anadramous form when confronted with "more favorable" conditions. What is true is that the selection pressure on the anadramous forms is decreasing their fitness in relation to the resident form. Thus, using your example of O. mykiss is the Lower Yuba, some of the progeny of O. mykiss leave to complete an anadramous life cycle, however when confronted with the construct of the degraded delta ecosystem/ocean conditions etc. are never heard from again. Because they do not return to spawn (or return in such low numbers) to pass down their fitness to the next generation, those that remain (the in river form) are those that we continue to see propagate.

So basically, it is a chicken or egg thing. Which came first: The riverine O. Mykiss or the anadromous O. Mykiss.
Right?

[Bob Laskodi]

WOWZERS, go to hell is now a professional and acceptable response on this forum. Thanks for reminding me why I no longer waste much of my valuable time on this useless forum any longer!

[Ralph]

Sorry for offending your sensibilities Bob. I kind of have a soft spot for what's left of our wild anadromous fishes, and because this is a family forum I held back what I really wanted to say. Even if we don't agree on all points all of the time, I respect your (and Tony's) comments and opinions because you have the guts and integrity to use your true identity.

[Alosa]

What a pile of BS. The peer reviewed scientific literature makes it clear that hatchery fish have a negative impact on wild stocks and ultimately undermine the longterm persistence of wild fish. As a fisheries biologist I can't say this any more plainly. Hatchery fish jeopardize the long term potential of recreational fishing. Done.

[Jake O]

About damns, in particular, engelbright. While there are a many a negative things, if it wasn't for this damn right now flows would be at 45 Cfs instead of 500. Something to ponder...... Engelbright acts as a safety net for flows in low water years

[Rich Morrison]

While I don't dispute for a second that what is going on in CA is a problem, we here in South Dakota have no ocean going fish. We are too far inland. We have no native trout at all. They were introduced in the 1800s. We now have thriving wild populations of Brown and Brook trout. They do stock Rainbows but these do not establish because most are caught and eaten and the Brown and Brook trout out compete them at every turn anyway. But tourism is a very important part of the economy here and the trout stocking program is seen as an integral part of that. I can't tell you how many times I've seen beaming faces on all sorts of folks, particularly kids, as they hold up that 14" or 16" stocker Rainbow. They don't care that it's not a wild fish. There is no doubt in my mind these fish are easier to catch and can be plentiful when stocked and thus no doubt do provide a recreational fishery. Alosa, as an obvious expert, do you think our fisheries here are also jeopardized by these hatchery fish? Or is this solely a CA issue given the native ocean going trout you have there?

[ycflyfisher]

"In other words, human intervention has made the habitat left on the lower Sac and Yuba much more fish friendly, damn near aquarium-like, than it ever was prior to human intervention."

May I suggest you are out of your mind. 150 years ago the fish were numbered in the hundreds of thousands if not millions, today a few thousand make a "good" run and up to 90% of those are genetically altered hatchery fish. The rivers used to be braided and densely wooded. Cellulose debris was abundant as was the distribution of substrate size ranging from grains of sand to giant boulders. Swamp-like sloughs, backwaters, and floodplains created vital habitat for smolt rearing. To suggest we have created salmonid shangri-la by building dams, turning the hydrograph on its head, straightening rivers, destroying flood plains, removing mate selection, and reducing genetic diversity by an order of magnitude sounds like something co-written by the Army Corp of engineers and PG&E as they try to sell an ignorant public on an ill advised boon doggle.

You need to get your head out of your books and open your eyes. It would be worth your while to visit some of the un dammed rivers in Alaska where only wild fish roam (by the tens of millions) to get some sort of sense of what a healthy eco system looks like. Your words are dangerous if even a single person is swayed by your ignorant ramblings.

Ralph,

Feel free to suggest I’m out of my mind, that I should get my head out of a book, should slam my head in a book, tell me to go to hell, or tell me to go rot in hell like last time I called your seemingly sacred opinions into question. Feel free to suggest whatever you feel is appropriate. It’s your opinion. I really couldn’t care less about your opinions, but I do find them to be entertaining.

That said, I think you should read this: “ Age, Growth and Life History of Steelhead Rainbow Trout of the Lower Yuba River, California” - Bill Mitchell - google it

From the abstract: “Based on general life history theory and the known life history plasticity of O. Mykiss, it is hypothesized that high, stable flows and cool temperatures resulting from summer and fall reservoir releases in the lower Yuba River support high growth, survival, and reproductive rates of steelhead rainbow trout that favor a resident life history strategy.”

Bill continues in the discussion section should you actually care about the truth. There’s also two more admin documents that I know of that discuss the Yuba/Sac steelhead subject (and another that's currently in development). As far as I’m concerned, you can spend your own time to dig those up yourself.

Bill Mitchell was the first fisheries professional I ever met in person BTW back when he had just secured the permit to trap the fish over DPD for this study and made a presentation at the local fly club.

Might want to compare that to what I said in post #8. Even with the correction provided by Tfisher, I’d say that my take is still pretty congruent with the peer reviewed science. Wouldn’t you agree? Even if you can’t agree, I hope you can see that your conclusions are the ones that are completely incorrect.

I’d suggest that you should start to occasionally stick your head in a book from time to time rather than acting like you know everything and blowing a gasket anytime someone calls your opinion into question. I think you’ll find that the peer reviewed science will skew your proverbial view from the clouds, in the world according to Ralph Cutter.


Tfisher (I definitely see the distinction and agree with what you're saying) and Alosa- Thank you for your input in this thread. I think it's sad that individuals like yourselves enter discussions like this one with trepidation. For what it's worth, I think there's a lot more of us paying attention, than you're probably assuming.

Bob- I wouldn’t sweat it. I’m not. It’s just Cutter showing his true colors.