I'm for hatcheries. They are the only reason that we still fish. But there are changes that need to be made. I would be happy to catch and release salmon and steelhead if the comercial guys would stop harvesting fish. Has any one ever stopped to think that hatcheries are where the WDFW and all other DFW in other states get their money? It mostly comes from people buying fishing licences to catch and KEEP planter trout in lakes. Getting rid of hatcheries would make the WDFW stop planting fish and loose thousands of dollars that are used to help salmon and steelhead. So I think that we need hatcheries not only to make salmon, but for the WDFW to get money that goes to salmon and steelhead conservation. Think about this the next time any of you want to make a post againsed hatcheris.

Jay

I think I remember reading something he wrote about this previously when the topic first came up. Check the early threads on the WT lawsuit if you dont get a response.

elkrun

Fishingjunk15:

You may want to try checking your facts before posting erroneous information. In the current budget for WDFW total revenues are roughly 295M$. NONE of that comes from fishing and hunting licenses. Those monies ALL go into the state general fund. The Genral fund supplies roughly 93M$ to WDFW and a variety of other funding sources uncluding Federal grants makes up the rest.

I currently have a request into the WDFWE to find out whatare total license fee revenues , so we can see if we are overpaying or underpaying our share. I will report what I learn.

The facts are in front of all to see.

The roads and dams have been built.

The human population is not going to shrink.

The forests will continue to be cut.

The tribes and the commercials will not stop fishing.

The sport fishermen/women still want to fish.

Any river with a hatchery that has eggs from a different gene pool probably has no true wild fish left.

Hatcheries make for great fishing oportunities. Lets build more.

First, I agree with just about everything salmo said, including thoughts on balance. However, I would like to clear up one point.

WT does agree that in some instances, the risks of extinction can outweigh the risks posed by hatchery practices. I think there actually may be seven such programs in Puget Sound, that were specifically excluded from the suit. However, the public will now get an opportunity to review the hatchery-management plans for those programs, to evaluate whether they are being run in a way that actually may contribute to chinook recovery.

And I am a little troubled by a reliance on preserving and indeed expanding harvest opportunities as a principal justification for hatchery production, right after salmo did such an excellent job of articulating how negative hatchery and harvest impacts create and feed off pressures from each other. Harvest impacts would be best mitigated by better harvest management, not by imposing new and cumulative risks from poor hatchery practices, particularly with populations being managed for recovery. Washington Trout is working equally hard toward both better harvest and hatchery management.

Ramon Vanden Brulle
Washington trout

Surecatch

"I was simply saying they stuff badly degraded, urban rivers with hatchery fish and leave the others alone."

Interesting, maybe not a bad idea.

WHERE does this idea come from?

Plain and simple response. I'm for reforms. But if we're REALLY going to do something, we need to do it together. That's the big problem. We don't. We have too many sides. You have certain groups who are trying to save the fish, that truly aren't sportsman, or have very little sportsman blood in them. I would love to say "I'll give up all my fishing until returns come back". Chances are, if that is the case, they won't deam a run "harvestable" until most of us have well become too old to truly enjoy the resource anymore. We need a group that works together. We don't need an organization. All they do is quite literally take money out of YOUR pockets. PERIOD. Money you've paid through the sweat off your back. You need to all realize we have too many "fish first" type organizations. We need ONE, PERIOD. I feel personally, get rid of all the WT's, WSC's, TU's, etc. Make on CENTRAL organization. This way we'd actually have some power to do something. Reforms have been going on at hatcheries, but it's slow going of course. You don't do a 180 overnight. If you do, you have sloppy transitions. That's purely from a business sense. Problem is, we'll never be as one. Why we'll never see what we all would like, wild fish again in high numbers. Too many groups bashing each other/the state.

Then, it comes down to federal funding. Well, ALL monies come from us one way or another. So, just because the monies from our licenses don't go to WDFW (which is completly stupid), the money comes from US either way. Funding is done through tax dollars, and I do believe most of us pay taxes. But I will say, not ALL should have a say in reforms. There are some knowledgeable people in the public arena, but alot of idiots too. It's a waste of time and taxpayers money to have to weed out all the BS. It's a nice thought, but overall costly. I highly doubt these public comments will come without a price, unless WT plans to pay for the processing of written letters or the cost to pay for a public arena. Who is the cost coming from? US! That's what ticks me off the most.

If you've noticed, I don't post on science and my true position. Why? Because I've seen facts on both sides that have supposedly proved "facts" one way or another. Which scientist is correct? Should we go through their backgrounds and do final judgement? Just ludicris to me. Basically too many cooks in the kitchen. I've been on both sides of the fence, both have plus and minuses. Both are unfounded as well. Each river system is different, so can't judge all rivers as same.

RK43,
Good post I think you nailed alot of the facts.

All I am saying is a river system with a hatchery that introduced eggs from another river (Skamania steelhead in the Cow) probably has no true "wild/Native" fish because of interbreeding with the hatchery fish.

My definition of a true wild fish, is a fish generated from the same gene pool as was in the river before the introduction of hatcheries.

True, rivers with hatcheries have natuarally spawning fish. But are they truely "wild"?

I don't think so. It is not the adipose that makes a fish wild. It is the gene pool that the fish came from.

Again, hatcheries make for some very fun and productive fishing. Lets build MORE.

It makes sense.....but I don't think the science supports this conclusion. One study done on the Kalama showed little or no genetic dilution of the wild fish due to the presence of hatchery fish. The reason being that when a wild and hatchery fish spawn, their offspring have extremely poor survival rates, so they aren't able to pass those genetics on to their offspring.

I'd like to see studies of this nature done on many systems in the state to see if the results are the same.

Dan S.,
Just wondering how these studies could be valid if we dont have the genetic information from a wild fish before human interaction?? The thread "got science" says the genetic code can be changed in a couple generations.So whats to say the fish they are studying are not allready changed?

Its logic duro...if you use mitochondrial DNA of a known fish, hatchery fish, you can deduce the rest from there.

I think it is unfair to criticize my post, i think hatcheries are postive thing, maybe they are trying to cover up the fact that wild stocks are way down. But putting me on the spot for what i said is just wrong. You posted your opinion and so did i, if everybody agreed on the same issues there would be nothing to talk about and you wouldnt even have to post that you are against hatcheries.

Don't sweat it, okieboy...........

I get the feeling you're not the only ProStaffer hanging out here.

Steelheader69,

I have to disagree-
The WSC did not take money away from our members they gladly joined because they want to walk the talk. Some members also prefer to support financially because of distant locations or other time constraints. The membership fees is the WSC operating budget and has allowed the WSC to do things like take a leadership role and sponsor the recent steelhead summits to help bring organizations together in collaboration.

Below is from a earlier thread:

On Saturday the WSC hosted Steelhead Summit 2 at REI in Seattle. The WSC would like to publically thank all the organizations and clubs that attended and participated. We are truely developing a coalition! What I witnessed yesterday was truely a working together/collaborative relationship by diverse organizations such as PSA, Trout Unlimited, FFF, WT, American Rivers, NW Marine Trade Ass'n. We would also like to thank the NW Women FF and Washington Council of FFF for their respective donations to help sponsor Summit 2.

Dave Bailey, once again did great job planning/coordinating as well as support from Dick Burge and Jack Berryman. Also thanks to all the other WSC board members who participated and helped out. Dee Norton once again was our reporter on the spot and I am sure will compose a great report. We are truely developing a strong voice for steelhead!

If your organization or club is interested in participating in a future summit feel free to email the WSC Summit committee at captain@olypen.com

Double Haul, you TOTALLY misread my post. I wasn't making a comment that the WSC was bad. I was making a point about different organizations that popped into my head. Each have their own agenda, which noone can deny. I was saying that they need to consolidate into ONE organization. How many guys truly join all the groups? Not many I'd assume. There is power in NUMBERS, not number of organizations. Too many groups cause conflict. Basically I was saying NOTHING will get done if you have fishermen/women in DIFFERENT groups supporting different agenda's. WSC IS A GROUP! They have a membership, so I put them in the mix. Didn't say they were lowlife scums (pretty sure I didn't). You can't tell me that it helps your organization when you have a ton of guys in the RFA, WT, TU, etc. If there are members in multiple groups, you have more of a chance for them to leave yours to vote another groups stance.

Strength in #'s is what I was getting to. I know all about the ways some groups go. I chose NOT to support ANY group at this point. I do my part with stream cleanups on my OWN, I follow the rules, I turn in poachers I see, and try to support positive reforms and have even helped in signature drives for initiatives. But, takes more then ONE person, takes a WHOLE fishing community to join as ONE to have ONE voice that will be heard. MANY voices come out garbled. Why do you think we shoot ourselves in the foot (why we should stick to fishing, not hunting lol ).

Hope this clarifies to you. But if you want me to rank on WSC, I'll figure out something if it makes you feel better.

double haul, did all these groups agree on anything at the wsc summit ?

Here we go again...back to the real meaning of a "wild fish" I read some very good comments from everyone who replyed to this situation' but again this is where the state screws up all the time!!! THEY DO NOT EDUCATE THE PUBLIC WELL ENOUGH!! The state considers a "wild fish" basically any fish that is hatched in a river system or a natural environment whether it's parents are originally from a hatchery or not. There are not too many "Native Fish " left in the state. Most river systems have had salmon introduced from some other river system.
Now to stick up for the hatcheries and the state to a point... I really want to belive that if they knew how detramental the hatchery practices were when it was started 100 years ago, they would have done things better. The state knows this, but it was not untill recent ( past 20 - 25 yrs) technology that they found out about the devestation it was having on the "Native Fish".
Now for my opinion... I think that it is too late to save most native runs of salmon...what do we want to do? Not fish anymore on awsome rivers or wait till after we die (till the old groth comes back) to be able to fish? If they determined these Puget Sound threatened species non-recoverable, the state could start raising more fish and 100% be able to up the economy in all ways like it was. It has not been till all this liberal b.s. came down the line that the state had to wonder why no one is fishing and spending money!!
Now on the other hand I truely think there are many Native runs of sthd in the state that can be saved!! Much to the dis belief of some people it is very unlikely that many hatchery winter sthd and native winter sthd can spawn. Most or all the winter hatchery sthd that are released from hatcheries originated from Chambers Creek...one main reason is because it was an early run of sthd and native runs are later. On the rivers that I know very well the native run comes in a month or so after the hatchery fish spawn and the nate's do not spawn for the most part for 2 - 4 months after...leaving it very unlikely that hatchery sthd and native sthd will ever spawn in most river systems.
I could go on... but don't have the time...bottom line is and I say again do you want to fish or try saving a lost cause that is mainly out of our hands?
p.s. the main reason why WT backed out of the so called "BIG LAWSUIT" is because the tribes told them if they want to persue this than they would take WT to federal court and tear them up!!! I never thout I would ever say thank god for the Bolt Decision!!!

Here we go again...back to the real meaning of a "wild fish" I read some very good comments from everyone who replyed to this situation' but again this is where the state screws up all the time!!! THEY DO NOT EDUCATE THE PUBLIC WELL ENOUGH!! The state considers a "wild fish" basically any fish that is hatched in a river system or a natural environment whether it's parents are originally from a hatchery or not. There are not too many "Native Fish " left in the state. Most river systems have had salmon introduced from some other river system.

Now to stick up for the hatcheries and the state to a point... I really want to belive that if they knew how detramental the hatchery practices were when it was started 100 years ago, they would have done things better. The state knows this, but it was not untill recent ( past 20 - 25 yrs) technology that they found out about the devestation it was having on the "Native Fish".

Now for my opinion... I think that it is too late to save most native runs of salmon...what do we want to do? Not fish anymore on awsome rivers or wait till after we die (till the old groth comes back) to be able to fish? If they determined these Puget Sound threatened species non-recoverable, the state could start raising more fish and 100% be able to up the economy in all ways like it was. It has not been till all this liberal b.s. came down the line that the state had to wonder why no one is fishing and spending money!!

Now on the other hand I truely think there are many Native runs of sthd in the state that can be saved!! Much to the dis belief of some people it is very unlikely that many hatchery winter sthd and native winter sthd can spawn. Most or all the winter hatchery sthd that are released from hatcheries originated from Chambers Creek...one main reason is because it was an early run of sthd and native runs are later. On the rivers that I know very well the native run comes in a month or so after the hatchery fish spawn and the nate's do not spawn for the most part for 2 - 4 months after...leaving it very unlikely that hatchery sthd and native sthd will ever spawn in most river systems.

I could go on... but don't have the time...bottom line is and I say again do you want to fish or try saving a lost cause that is mainly out of our hands?

p.s. the main reason why WT backed out of the so called "BIG LAWSUIT" is because the tribes told them if they want to persue this than they would take WT to federal court and tear them up!!! I never thought I would ever say thank god for the Bolt Decision!!!