Smalma,

You're right, of course, it wouldn't be nearly as much fun, or informative, if we agreed about everything...

Some additional responses to your responses

1. What's being proposed is not a CnR season, but an additional WSR season with hatchery retention. I would hope not too many folks would complain about that type of fishery, as that's what we have all summer, and all winter except for a few streams.

2. There are broodstock programs in a couple major Chehalis tribs that result in March/April hatchery fish, and a couple of other hatchery programs, big and small, that also have good returns of late hatchery fish. I wouldn't be surprised to find a 50/50 split of hatchery and wild fish through March, probably leaning to more like 75/25 for natives by mid-April. There will be lots of clipped fish to fish for, catch, and harvest.

3. It's hard to argue with you about various levels of skill, or more to the point, care, involved in properly fighting and releasing steelhead. In the context of current impacts, 10% includes a generous margin of error, and it's not necessarily a bad idea to keep it there.

When we're talking about what is possible with good CnR techniques, and where we'll hopefully get through better education, I'll stick with 3% or 4%

I'll further admit that I don't know how many fish will be encountered, wild or hatchery, during a month long season on those rivers. As usual, it'll be a function of effort, weather, and presence of fish. I guess we'll see.

Fish on...

Todd.

Contack ISSU and Idaho Rivers United for additional support ??

Quoting Todd.....Oh, yeah, anyone who truly believes that either there are no wild fish, or that hatchery fish spawning in the wild is in any way good, then they are completely ignorant of the ALL the current scientific data whose results are directly contrary to those beliefs.
_____________________________________

And said with enthusiasm! Todd, I dare say, if spawning hatchery fish are not "in any way good" then WTF are we doing raising them outside of pens? Perhaps some study is needed to learn a practical way to sterilize them? Or dye them with luminous dye so they can be killed more easily? Get serious. Hatchery fish have caused much discussion and hypothesizing about gene pool deterioration, etc., etc., etc. But they are still here swimming about the oceans and returning as weighty and healthy as their wild counterparts, and regardless of arguments, I'm not convinced that anyone can tell the difference between one and the other prior to landing it. If you think you can.....try it. Go ahead and verbalize your guess to a buddy and see how you do. In a mix of hatchery fish and wild fish, you will not be able to tell one from the other.....guaranteed. Don't get me wrong....I don't kill natives, but I regard the hatchery fish/wild fish controversy as highly over dramatized. It's kind of like the 12.5% buffer over escapement.....now there's a number.....12.5%....oooooeeeeee. Or halibut allotments to the pound...UH HUH

All I'm saying, is that if WDFW wants to be respected, then common sense and reality need to come together....and perhaps a rewording of the term "best available science" into "estimated" is in order.
Flame ON!

I particpate in fisheries where harvest of all or at least most fish is allowed. I will only fish if the wild season is open.


In this case WDFG is cutting it to close. They are 10-15 % over goal and trying to jump in with an intensified fishery. They can't measure run size to within 10-15 %, add in error in predicting and error in the spawner goal and it gets to risky. The Chehalis is a big river and has been depressed recently. I say let all the wild fish spawn.

I like to fish and harvest. With my limited skill, in C & R before long I have either killed or badly stressed a native. Bad feeling. If I can't eat it, I don't fish it. Thats me. Its OK if you like C & R.

Many push for C & R based on conservation. In all caps KILL FISHERY FOR WILD STEELHEAD, they try to demonize those who prefer to harvest. Do you have confidence in WDFG methods to the point you can say harvest is bad, but it is OK to hook, land, stress severely and release (hopefully still alive) a native steelhead. It sounds like allocation advocacy under the mascurade of conservation. If you don't think the biology supports harvest of fish, leave the fish alone rather than a hypocritical position that puts someone else off the river.

The C & R folks again show a sincere interest in conservation and compassion for wild fish by trying to catch out the hatchery fish that would otherwise spawn with and damage the wild fish. Is releasing hatchery fish on top of wild fish and then trying to fish them out good conservation? If hatchery fish spawning with wild fish is doing damage, I guarantee it will be better to not grow the hatchery fish in the first place.!!

I'm OK with allocation to C & R. It might be what most people want, best for the economy etc. However, don't make allocation arguements based on conservation. You will never really be able to clearly sort out and address conservation again from that point forward.

My comment to WDFG would be to close the fishery this year. Scale back hatchery programs severely. Allow wild runs to recover which they will do. Divide the basin based on allocation with some areas C & R and other for harvest.

"But they are still here swimming about the oceans and returning as weighty and healthy as their wild counterparts..."

If hatchery fish are "returning as weighty and healthy" as wild fish, then why does such a poor percentage of hatchery plants return compared to wild fish?

Todd -
Your suggested ratio of 75 wild fish to 25 hatchery fish in April illustrates clearly one of the down sides of late timed wild brood stocks. If it is indeed as you suggest or even close to that ratio then on those years with poor wild runs (recent past?) and no fisheries in April there must be an awful lot of hatchery fish spwaning with wild fish. In your example it might be as much as 25% - clearly above the guidelines in the State's Wild Salmonid Policy (max. of 10% for similar stocks). I assumed (probably incorrectly that peak wild spawning in much of the system would be late April/early May -thus the ratio of hatchery to wild in mid-April would likely be that we would see on the spawning grounds.

On years of poor wild runs the managers face the dilemma of having excessive hatchery fish spawning or exposing the depressed wild fish to extra fishing impacts.

I can hear so of the earlier posters ready to argue that the hatchery fish from wild brood stock are as good as the wild fish. I don't believe so. There is a growing body of information that any offspring from fish that had spend an extend period of time in hatchery do not survival as well as naturally produced fish from wild fish. Perhaps a hypothetical example will illustrate why that might be. Let's compare the results of a pair of fish spawning in the wild and a pair used in a brood stock program. I will use a typical fecundity of 5,000 eggs per female.

The wild case - For a river being managed unde MSY and the escapement goal being met those 5,000 eggs would typcially produce about 30 smolts or with a 10% smolt to adult survival I would expect those two spawners to produce 3 returning adults - In this case the population could sustain a fishing impact of 33%. If the river was managed at carrying capacity then I would expect about 20 smolts and 2 adults - fishing impacts would have to be zero!

In the hatchery/wild brood stock those 5,000 eggs might produce 3,500 smolts and with a decent hatchery smolt to adult survival of 4% would produce 140 adults.

Please notice.
The eggs from naturally spawning fish had a freshwater mortality of more than 99%. That means that the resulting smolts were the fittest of the fittest. The parent female likely was more successful than most in picking a good redd site. The fry that survived had behaviors that were the very best at avoiding predators, feeding food, finding safe refuge from floods and droughts and were very luckily. When they return they will likely pass those behaviors on to their offspring.

Meanwhile that fish produced in the hatchery were not nearly as rigorously selected against (freshwater mortlatiy of 30%) and many of them will have behaviors that would not be as successful in the wild. Thus in the wild on the whole their offspring will be less fit than those from naturally produced parents.

It should also be noted that there were a heck of lot more adults produced in the hatchery program per pair of spawners. Hatcheries can be very good producing fish to catch but not very good at producing successful spawners.

All of the above once again shows how complex steelhead and steelhead management are.

Tight lines
Smalma

Smalma......with all due respect, the concept of survival of the fittest is popular, but not necessarily accurate. Exactly what percentage of the survivors are the result of luck? Now I realize that my question is impossible to answer, but don't you think it a reasonable one? Perfectly strong, healthy parents producing the best possible fertilization success can be wiped out by a herd of elk, a falling tree....hundreds of other possibilities.

Since it seems that hatchery fish don't survive well in the wild, and we all know that wild fish could use a hand (go ahead, jump all over that statement), don't you think that incubators are a very real concept? I KNOW that I could design a floating incubator that would protect the eggs and free the young. I really seems like an avenue that needs some serious time and effort put into it to me.

Fun5Acres, As much as we try- Mankind cannot do what mother nature does best.

Since it's so late...I'll just make a short comment:

Anything that we do to increase the productivity of native fish by putting them in any situation from a hatchery to a spawning box or a broodstock program that includes either/or...we produce an animal that does not measure up to the quality or numbers that are produced via wild spawning by wild fish.

Fish on...

Todd.

Todd....

"How can that be so?"

I am not talking about assisting in any way that would restrict the offspring's natural struggle to survive......only in assuring that the offspring have the maximum CHANCE at that survival.

I am sure that none of my children suffered major setbacks by my wife having a doctor present when they were born (an extreme comparison, I know, but you catch the drift?).

I get the distinct impression that this is a political football, and that WDFW employees are assigned the task of selling concepts that aid, but do not actually achieve rapid recovery (going through the motions, so to speak).

NOW, how do I make this next statement without being accusatory?

Since it is my belief that money (the great, green God) drives most things in life, then perhaps it is the desire for Federal funds that keeps recovery at bay. After all, if I were in charge of WDFW, I could use the unexpressed (at least publically) rationale that the struggle with producing fish could be greatly eased by buying "necessary" land, easements, water rights, etc., etc., etc.

What do you think? Am I on to something?

At any rate, I appreciate your patience, Todd. It must be exhausting.