Superfly, your stereotyping flyfishers------- spooners and jiggers and eggers and shrimpers and spinners and flossers and snaggers have all been known to fish over spawning fish------ what about bait and downsteamers?

See 'Fly, that wasn't so hard was it! That was an intelligent, well though-out post that lends so much more credibility to your viewpoint. IMHO.

p.s. I wasn't offended by the language, F**k no!

Small question Jerry since we are on the subject of stereotyping? Is calling those people who support keeping hatcheries "meat hunters" not stereotyping? If your gonna play the game please apply the rules equally.

Meathunters was one word Goose and yes RA3 was also stereotyping!

Joe,

Justin did stop by the last meeting, but only stayed for a minute because he was on his way to a B.A.S.S. meeting to try and sell some Vision bass hooks. He asked me about the next meeting, which isn't until next month, as we don't have a July meeting.

Go to http://www.wildsteelheadcoalition.com to see the mission statement, etc., for the Wild Steelhead Coalition. If you can't make it up for a meeting, maybe Justin can give you the full report. Make sure he brings lots of hooks and swivels!!

Fish on...

Todd.

Jerry Who exactly was I stereotyping? I was stereotyping anglers who fish for hatchery chinook in Puget Sound.. I would also say it was not a negative stereotype simply that the motivation of chinook fishermen in my experience is much different than say steelhead fishermen. In fact based on my observations of chinook fishermen in general (fall chinook anyway) i'd say that at least 50% never fish except when there are a lot of fish around that they can kill. That makes them meathunters. There is nothing wrong with that. However I do not want to sacrifice our wild fish so that people can harvest hatchery fish. That is exactly what we are doing!!

Robert Allen -
I'm sure that we both agree that: 1)recovery of wild fish is dependent on placing their needs first and 2) there is much that needs to be addressed in the hatchey arena and the interaction of hatchery fish with wild fish.

However I have to disagree that eliminating hatchery programs is the sure way to recovery. There at less two examples in Puget Sound where hatchery steelhead programs have been eliminated and a decade ort more later the wild fish numbers are no better; The Nisqually and Cedar. The first step towards successful recovery of wild stocks is having healthy rivers. Without productive habitats no fish have a chance. Destroyed habitat is not easily restored with recovery times measured in life-times or more.

There has been much bantering about lately regarding the best science. However the refutable science is that salmonids need water!!

Tight lines
Smalma

Thanks for the spelling correction Jerry! Uhh RA3 I fish for chinook when I'm fishing for chinook, I also fish for steelhead when I fish for steelhead, I also fish for coho when I fish for coho, I also fish for pinks when I fish for pinks, I also fish for chum when I fish for chum, I also...dang that could go on forever! Well one more...I also fish for all of the above at the same time whenever they are present and it is legal to do so. What does that make me...hey I'm thick skinned...call it like you see it? Please let it happen Jerry this once?
After that I really do promise to be a good little bird! Hey I'm serious !

I never said stereotyping was bad only pointing out everybody[damn, that was stereotyping] does it. IMHO, stereotyping [ or the use of absolutes like always, never,everybody, etc.] dilutes the facts and alienates those that don't fit the norm. I fish for the white kings on the Veder 3 or 4 times in the fall, rarely if ever bring home a fish----- yet I'm still a meathunter?

Getting back to the issue and Looking at things from another perspective we might note that:

"The Hatchery Reform Effort Moves Forward"

"The goal of recovering wild salmon stocks was given a boost recently when the Hatchery Reform Project released its first set of recommendations on how to reform hatchery operations in three regions.

The Hatchery Science Review Group - a diverse panel of independent scientists established to develop the scientific framework to guide hatchery reform programs - wrote the recommendations. They took a close look at tribal, state and federal hatchery operations over the past two years, using the best available science to recommend ways to restore wild salmon runs and produce fish for harvest. The recommendations, announced at a news conference in February, varied from area wide to specific recommendations for individual hatcheries.

The Hatchery Reform Project is a systematic, science-driven effort to address how hatcheries will be used to achieve their goals while helping to recover and conserve naturally spawning salmon populations and support sustainable fisheries.

"We are confident that by working together we can achieve our goal of returning wild salmon stocks to abundance," said Billy Frank Jr., NWIFC chairman. "Reforming hatchery practices is another step on the road to wild salmon recovery."

But, no matter how well a hatchery is run, it will never replace the real thing. "It's only one part of a big puzzle. Hatcheries do not take the place of habitat. They never have, never will. We need salmon coming back to our rivers and streams," said Frank.

Hatcheries will no longer be judged on the basis of how many fish they produce, said Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife Director Jeff Koenings. Instead, they will be judged on the basis of how many adults return to a river system.

In locations where wild salmon stocks are depressed, their recovery can get a "jump start" from a hatchery that spawns the wild adults to boost a new generation of fish, Koenings said.

"The Hatchery Reform Project is the first time anyone has taken a big-picture, systematic look at the Puget Sound and coastal hatcheries," said Rep. Norm Dicks, who shepherded funding for the project through Congress.

"By moving ahead with these reforms, the states and tribes will not only go beyond the Endangered Species Act's requirements to minimize hatchery impacts, they intend to help us bring back the wild salmon," said Sen. Patty Murray.

Congress first funded Hatchery Reform in 2000 due to concerns - following the ESA listings of several local salmon stocks - that hatcheries were having a detrimental effect on salmon runs.

After looking at the hatcheries on the Strait of Juan de Fuca, South Sound and the Stillaguamish/Snohomish watersheds, the review group will visit three more regions starting this year. "Only a comprehensive plan can balance all the related, complex interests, such as tribal treaty rights, sports fishing and conservation," said Dicks

In addition to Hatchery Genetic Management Plans being developed for each tribal facility, projects are also being funded through the Hatchery Reform Project to improve how hatcheries perform. Nineteen tribal hatchery reform projects were funded this year."

From: The Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission Newsletter - winter 2001/2002

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

I can only discuss to this issue as a layman but it seems obvious that hatcheries have both positive and negative effects to consider in relationship to wild salmonids.

The current trend in science is to brand hatcheries as evil destroyers of wild fish but it seems to me that this is not altogether true.

Some contributors here have mentioned several undeniably negative effects that poorly managed hatchery operations might have on wild fish. It seems that the negative image they have constructed might be tempered with a look at some of the positive aspects of proper hatchery operations and the benign effects that they and the fish they contribute to the ecosystems provide.

Hatchery produced salmon, including the hybrid and inbred ones, can contribute positively to the numbers of wild fish and to the wild genepool.

This can be seen from the introduced Skamania hatchery stock that has established itself as a viable stock of wild steelhead in the upper South Fork of the Stillaguamish River where no historic stock of anadromous fish existed. This is just one of many instances where fish barriers have been removed to open new habitat now populated with wild fish of hatchery origin.

Another "benign to wild" contribution can be found in the heart of Metropolitan Seattle. The first sockeye were introduced to the Lake Washington drainage in 1917 with the planting of 19,700 fish of unknown origin. From 1935 through 1945, a total of almost 2,700,000 sockeye of mixed Grandy Creek origin was introduced to the Cedar River and Issaquah Creek. Another 576,000 Grandy Creek sockeye were introduced to Big Bear Creek in 1937 and 41,000 to the "main body" of the lake in 1942.

Another strain of sockeye from Cultus Lake, BC in Canada was introduce to North Creek (23,655) in 1944 and into Issaquah Creek (59,613 total) in 1950 and 1954. Another nearly 4,000,000 sockeye of unknown origin were planted from 1977 through 1979, mostly in the Cedar River.

The Grandy Creek strain was developed from a mix of Baker River, Quinault River, Yes Bay and Afognak Alaska hatchery strains creating in the Lake Washington ecosystem a most remarkable melting pot of introduced hatchery salmon. A melting pot of mostly wild sockeye with an achievable spawning escapement of 3,500,000 salmon.

Those are 3,000,000+ wild sockeye that would not exist without the benefit of hatcheries.

Another less local example of benefit is the multitude of wild and hatchery salmon and steelhead in the Great Lakes, an integral part in another ecological melting pot.

Might I mention the introduced hatchery trout living wild in Patagonia… the very fish that Michael Darland, a staunch supporter of WT, utilizes in the operation of his lucrative fly-in fly-fishing resort operations? These introduced hatchery fish provide entertainment for not only Mr. Darlands exclusive guests in his Argentine and Chilean operations but also for anglers of every description from around the world.

An unbiased fisheries biologist could certainly cite many further examples of the benefits to wild fish that hatcheries provide and even a layman can see that these benefits are best preserved through orderly hatchery reformation including the minimization of the less desirable characteristics.

It simply makes the most sense to maximize the benefits to wild salmon and mankind while minimizing the amount of harm.

Legal action to close hatcheries will not provide remedy that insures the proliferation of wild salmon and may in fact cause more harm than good. At best it draws attention and hopefully better funding for the issues surrounding salmon prosperity. At worst it absolutely wastes resources better deployed elsewhere or in the case of wholesale hatchery closures may cause the absolute extinction of some salmon stocks preserved only through hatchery efforts.

An excellent example of a waste of resources can be found in the previously mentioned litigation focused on the Tokul Creek Hatchery. The work WT has done to insure temporary passage above the barrier dam the past couple of years is commendable and will surely result in a permanent solution to the problem despite the lawsuit.

More importantly, The Snoqualamie chinook population is rebounding irrespective of the Tokul Creek deficit relegating provisions for passage there to icing on the cake.

Another quote from the NWIFC Newsletter - winter 2001/2002:

" For chinook salmon in the Snohomish system, including the Snohomish, Skykomish and Snoqualmie rivers, the co-managers were able to achieve the highest escapement since at least 1965. Pink and coho salmon escapements were also at record levels in the Snohomish, with pink totals reaching almost four times the previous high. “Escapement” is the number of fish allowed to spawn in order to sustain a run at a desired level.

Snohomish chinook escapement for 2001 was estimated to be 8,581 spawning fish. The average number through the 1960s and 1970s was approximately 5,000 fish per year. Between 1980 and 1998 this number was not reached even once. Since then, the escapement has exceeded 6,000 in 1998, 2000, and 2001. The recent upturn indicates that conservative harvest management plans are allowing large numbers of chinook to spawn to propagate the species."

These fish are not in dire need of urgent litigation for remedy. They are rebounding nicely despite the blocked passage at Tokul Creek. Although I don't have numbers I'm quite sure from personal observation that Skagit River chinook are also rebounding in population. Perhaps it was unwarranted emotional haste to even list some of these fish as threatened. Perhaps we and the wild fish would all be better served by concentrating our resources in areas which provide the maximum benefit in a studied post haste manner.

In my opinion Washington Trout is expecting to much. We cannot remove every dam, close every hatchery, eliminate all harvest and recreate a pristine habitat like what existed previous to the appearance of European immigrants. I must say that such a dream does deserve to be savored as one relishes the sweetness of honey.

Sadly, it seems that we cannot live on honey alone.

For more information about the hatchery reform efforts check the following link:

HATCHERY REFORM IN PUGET SOUND & COASTAL WASHINGTON

Sometimes the wheels of change turn slower than we would like but considering the management mistakes made in the past it seems prudent to do things right this time around.

Does anyone have any positive suggestions what we as a user group can do to facilitate the reform process?

Volunteer to help! Thanks Plunker!