#198086 - 05/20/03 09:59 PM
Re: Why I am against hatcheries...
|
Spawner
Registered: 03/22/03
Posts: 860
Loc: Puyallup, WA
|
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
_________________________
They say that the man that gets a Ph.D. is the smart one. But I think that the man that learns how to get paid to fish is the smarter one.
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#198087 - 05/21/03 02:17 AM
Re: Why I am against hatcheries...
|
Spawner
Registered: 01/15/01
Posts: 759
Loc: Port Angeles, WA
|
Originally posted by stlhdh2o:
I am not familiar with the specifics of the Feather River study that's been bandied about so much lately but I do understand the implication of its findings. How much weight do you give to the idea that a high percentage of wild smolt are consumed as prey by hatchery released smolt?
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
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#198088 - 05/21/03 10:36 AM
Re: Why I am against hatcheries...
|
Reverend Tarpones
Registered: 10/09/02
Posts: 8379
Loc: West Duvall
|
Originally posted by Fishingjunk15: 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.
Jay 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.
_________________________
No huevos no pollo.
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#198089 - 05/21/03 11:29 AM
Re: Why I am against hatcheries...
|
Returning Adult
Registered: 07/23/02
Posts: 476
Loc: Edmonds
|
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.
_________________________
ARGH!!! The cooler's EMPTY!!!
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#198090 - 05/21/03 12:14 PM
Re: Why I am against hatcheries...
|
Juvenille at Sea
Registered: 07/10/02
Posts: 123
Loc: Duvall, WA
|
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
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#198091 - 05/21/03 12:33 PM
Re: Why I am against hatcheries...
|
River Nutrients
Registered: 10/04/01
Posts: 3563
Loc: Gold Bar
|
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.
_________________________
A.K.A Lead Thrower
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#198092 - 05/21/03 12:50 PM
Re: Why I am against hatcheries...
|
It all boils down to this - I'm right, everyone else is wrong, and anyone who disputes this is clearly a dumbfuck.
Registered: 03/07/99
Posts: 16958
Loc: SE Olympia, WA
|
Any river with a hatchery that has eggs from a different gene pool probably has no true wild fish left. WHERE does this idea come from?
_________________________
She was standin' alone over by the juke box, like she'd something to sell. I said "baby, what's the goin' price?" She told me to go to hell.
Bon Scott - Shot Down in Flames
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#198093 - 05/21/03 01:25 PM
Re: Why I am against hatcheries...
|
Spawner
Registered: 12/14/99
Posts: 788
Loc: Tacoma WA
|
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.
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#198094 - 05/21/03 04:15 PM
Re: Why I am against hatcheries...
|
Spawner
Registered: 09/08/02
Posts: 812
Loc: des moines
|
RK43, Good post I think you nailed alot of the facts.
_________________________
Chinook are the Best all else pale in comparison!!!!!
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#198095 - 05/21/03 05:00 PM
Re: Why I am against hatcheries...
|
Returning Adult
Registered: 07/23/02
Posts: 476
Loc: Edmonds
|
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.
_________________________
ARGH!!! The cooler's EMPTY!!!
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#198096 - 05/21/03 05:19 PM
Re: Why I am against hatcheries...
|
It all boils down to this - I'm right, everyone else is wrong, and anyone who disputes this is clearly a dumbfuck.
Registered: 03/07/99
Posts: 16958
Loc: SE Olympia, WA
|
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. 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.
_________________________
She was standin' alone over by the juke box, like she'd something to sell. I said "baby, what's the goin' price?" She told me to go to hell.
Bon Scott - Shot Down in Flames
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#198097 - 05/21/03 05:59 PM
Re: Why I am against hatcheries...
|
Spawner
Registered: 09/08/02
Posts: 812
Loc: des moines
|
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?
_________________________
Chinook are the Best all else pale in comparison!!!!!
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#198098 - 05/21/03 06:23 PM
Re: Why I am against hatcheries...
|
Carcass
Registered: 10/31/02
Posts: 2449
Loc: Portland
|
Its logic duro...if you use mitochondrial DNA of a known fish, hatchery fish, you can deduce the rest from there.
_________________________
"Christmas is an American holiday." - micropterus101
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#198099 - 05/21/03 09:36 PM
Re: Why I am against hatcheries...
|
Juvenille at Sea
Registered: 03/05/01
Posts: 121
Loc: Rockport Wa
|
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.
_________________________
team cracker mary jane pro staff
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#198101 - 05/22/03 01:32 AM
Re: Why I am against hatcheries...
|
Three Time Spawner
Registered: 03/07/99
Posts: 1440
Loc: Wherever I can swing for wild ...
|
Originally posted by Steelheader69: . 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. 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
_________________________
Decisions and changes seldom occur by posting on Internet bulletin boards.
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#198102 - 05/22/03 02:55 AM
Re: Why I am against hatcheries...
|
Spawner
Registered: 12/14/99
Posts: 788
Loc: Tacoma WA
|
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. ![laugh laugh](/forum/images/graemlins/default_dark/laugh.gif)
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#198103 - 05/22/03 07:52 PM
Re: Why I am against hatcheries...
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
double haul, did all these groups agree on anything at the wsc summit ?
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#198104 - 05/23/03 12:19 AM
Re: Why I am against hatcheries...
|
Alevin
Registered: 03/24/03
Posts: 13
Loc: Whatcom County
|
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!!!
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#198105 - 05/23/03 12:45 AM
Re: Why I am against hatcheries...
|
Alevin
Registered: 03/24/03
Posts: 13
Loc: Whatcom County
|
Originally posted by stlhdh2o: In general I think the hatchery system is wrongheaded....the following is my best effort at describing why I feel the way I do. I hope my efforts here will be enough to convince some of you that the 'Hidden Agenda' of WT may be the only way to save wild fish populations in our state. At the very least I would hope you just take my opinion into consideration, I suppose that's all one can ever ask in these conversations. BTW, I've never found WT's 'agenda' to be 'hidden', all I need to know about them is contained in their mission statement, which coincidentally is pretty close to the mission statements of Wyoming Trout, Colorado Trout, Montana Trout, Idaho Trout, Oregon Trout, California Trout etc, etc...
This is a layman's explanation, based on opinion, emotion and what I believe to be facts. Hopefully Smalma or Salmo G. will let me know if I've got something completely wrong here....
Hatcheries should NEVER have been on our rivers in the first place. There were no considerations made at the time for how these hatcheries would affect wild fish populations in their respective watersheds. Now that wild fish populations are in jeapordy throughout Puget Sound and even Washington state as a whole, WDFW asks that someone prove there is an impact before the hatcheries are removed? I hope I've got it wrong because that sounds like incredibly backward thinking to me.
In my opinion hatcheries need to justify their own existence. The burden of proof should lie with the IMPACTER not the IMPACTED. In that light I would like to see each and every hatchery in our state closed until they can prove:
1) There are no wild fish left in their respective watersheds, or that the wild populations that do exist are considered beyond the ability to recover ...in this case a I think a hatchery is a good idea...
or
2) They have no significant impact on wild fish populations. That's right, here is where the burden of proof I spoke of above comes into play. The health and vitality of a species native to our rivers is at stake...those that wipe their butts with the spotted owl will take issue with this of course because it puts the welfare of an animal above the welfare of an economy, which affects people. In my opinion this is the single most important fulcrum dividing sportsfishermen. Fish first or fishing first?
For me, there is no question. If the hatchery system were to be enacted today they would have to prove these things anyway. That they didn't have to at their inception can be fixed by making them do it now.
The thing that most people on the other side of this argument fail to see is that I am willing to put my rod away for good if it means even just a chance at recovery for wild fish populations. Already I have taken as many steps as I possibly can to minimize my personal impact, limiting my fishing to rivers whose native populations are relatively healthy, I've educated myself as to the proper way to handle fish for release, I don't use bait during months where heavy smolt populations are present...the list goes on...I'm sure there is more I can do, maybe someday I will be as committed to this idea as WT.
Don't for a minute think I am foolish enough to think that this is an end all solution. With hatcheries gone it would create quite a dilemma for commercial fishermen and the tribes. As far as commercial fishing, at least in Puget Sound goes, no sport fishery = no commercial fishery period, IMO.
The tribes are a different issue entirely. I have no answer here...seems like one for the litigators. The first thought that comes to mind is that if you have a casino generating mega-bucks for the people of your reservation or tribe, how on earth can you justify the need to harvest fish from the river? Don't get me wrong, no one would cheer louder than I if the Quillayutes decided tomorrow that they were going to revert to the fishing methods of their ancestors....whatever those are. Preserving culture, thumbs up...fishing native stocks into exinction, thumbs down. The rub though is that not all of the different tribes have casinos, the biggest source of income for the Hoh tribe for example is wild salmon and steelhead. Who am I or anyone else for that matter to take that away from them?
I never claimed to have the answers. It cracks me up when people do, its usually a crystal clear indication that they are to be ignored. All I have is my opinion, thankfully I've learned over the years that if hold onto that too tightly it will melt away in my hands, leaving me with nothing.
Even though we have divergent opinions about the necessity of hatcheries I hope that either Smalma or Salmo will take the time to share their ideas about why I am wrong, or what misinterpretations of fact I may be incorporating into my logic. If nothing else your excellent counter-points always leave me re-examining my positions, which IMO is the only to way to continue to learn and evolve.
If you've made it this far....thank you. 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!!!
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
1 registered (I'm Still RichG),
408
Guests and
3
Spiders online. |
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
11498 Members
16 Forums
63807 Topics
645760 Posts
Max Online: 3937 @ 07/19/24 03:28 AM
|
|
|