I fell this statement from WT, mentioned a couple posts ago, says it all:

The HGMP's consistently fail to discuss why it is socially, economically or biologically necessary , advisable, or even beneficial to provide fish for harvest..."


Who are these guys anyway? Washington State is not known for trout fishing like , Montana is. Washington State is known for spectacular salmon fishing and there is no way this fishing can support the harvest it does without hatchery supplementation.

I guess WT exists so as to make trout fishing better. Are they making trout fishing better?

This year by far has been the best year for me ever in terms of catching Kings in the few areas that are open that I have fished, Area 11 and Tulalip Bubble. I am greatful that the fishing seems to be turning the corner. There's no way that those areas would be open were it not for hatcheries. So all you WT supporters just keep in mind that basically your calling for eliminating the few remaining opportunities for sports fisherman like myself who relish catching salmon in Puget Sound.

Better look at that quote more closely and not read anything into it. Which you are all doing.

Now i am not saying that WT wants hatcheries to operate as they have been for decades ( very little has changed).. But that quote does not say what you are saying it does. It is not saying there is no benefit for providing fish for harvest. It is saying that the HGMP's are so vague that they do not even suggest any benefit..
Any way you slice it these HGMP's are extremely bad and totally imcomplete. They are vague and describe nothing that WDFW is willing to do to help puget sounds endangered wild chinook!!!

Washington Trout would be 100% satisfied if WDFW could run their hatcheries without posing a threat to the survival of wild chinook..
WT would be off the back of WDFW if they wouod just do theri jobs and come up with legit plans to do what they are obligated by law to do!!!

Rob Allen,
Grandpa answered you in post #5 of this thread and I couldnt agree with him more.
As usual YOUR the one that "goes off"on people and starts the name calling. I have seen more threads closed after YOU start posting in them than anyone else here. There are places that can help you with anger managment classes. Try Western State Hospital if that dosent work for you maybe the Rainier School in Buckley can do the job.

Ok, all this talk about hatcheries and wild fish recovery misses the point entirely.

Don't get me wrong I do believe this may be the best salmon year in two decades, but that is due to outstanding marine conditions, not a sudden resolution of the dilema facing wild fish.

Probably, the other big issue causing increased catches in washington this year is that the canadian commericial troll fleet can't fish off of Vancouver Island (where a lot of our fish grow up) because of their coho recovery efforts. Something to bear in mind next time the canada-US salmon treaty comes up for renegotiation.

What has laid wild salmon popluations low in this state is habitat destruction ie siltation, channelization of streambeds, damming, irrigation, water quality issues, low water due to human usage etc. etc.

For wild salmon to recover, we need to address these habitat issues and these are long term issues. Sure, overfishing, hatchery wild interactions, all that does happen, but salmon can recovery in a very few generations from such insults--they undergo extreme selective pressures during their lifecycle. Look at places with pristine habitat like alaska and you have some hatcheries and overfishing from time to time, but the salmon bounce back quickly. Why? because the habitat is intact.

I think as long as there are serious habitat problems, we will need hatcheries where those problems exist if we want to have salmon fisheries. I guess that is the debate here.

At best hatcheries are only tangential to the issue of wild salmon recovery.

If we want wild salmon to be around for the future, we need to address the habitat issues.

Habitat is the key!

Geoduck

There are a lot of people smarter than me on this issue, but my gut feeling is exactly what Goeduck stated above.

I grew up near Chimacum Creek in Port Townsend Bay, and saw how habitat loss effects a small stream first hand. Chimacum Creek is an example of an area where the local, State, Private and Federal sectors have all responded with a goal to restore habitat, and slowly the fish population has grown. Then when the ocean conditions improved, the runs really made progress.

I think of this as a window of opportunity, and we have to do all we can while the ocean survival rate is strong. Unfortunatly, some streams are not worth putting the money into, as they are way too far gone.

I applaud all the good points made about how diverse the problem of salmon survival is to us all. Many factors contribute to loss and recovery.

Just a side note: I used to work at Rainier School in Buckley and that is a great suggestion as a place to help anyone with a behavior problem. The facility is geared to severe problems and they even have padded cells.

Grandpa, for the last time I do not side with WT, nor do I side with you. I agree with some from those 2 sides.

Here is an interesting artical on restored creeks.
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/107460_coho06.shtml

Duroboat,

Indeed water quality and quantity are very important and underappreciated aspects of fish habitat. Contrary to popular belief, it takes more than good gravel to have habitat for salmon.

I think if these low water levels continue for many more years it will be water quantity that is limiting for salmon everywhere in washington. Increasing demands for water by our growing human poplulation are going to be a serious impediment to wild salmon in future years.

Just my doom and gloom $.02

OK Jerry point well taken.....good dialogue so far.

Washington Trout's statement that the HGMP's don't make a good enough case for a good reason to provide fish for harvest is not ambiguous to me. They are trying to show that hatcheries are not needed and should be closed. That is what they have been pushing and will continue to push until they either succeed and fishing falls apart or they are stopped. I , for one, will work hard to try to stop themevery chance I get. Make no mistake, I am all for the habitat restoration ideal but I also know that rivers with pristine habitat have no fish and poor habitats have fish so it isn't cut and dried. So many things are under way right now to help the cause of restoring salmon runs that WT's methods are still radical and extreme in my mind.

If I'm not mistaken, your earlier argument was that the wild fish populations are doing very well. If that is indeed the case, then why do we need hatcheries?

In contrast, if the wild populations are not doing well, then one has to ask the questions as to why that might be the case. Sure we're seeing an up turn the past couple of seasons, but it is doubtful that this will be a continuing trend.

Are Hatcheries good or are they bad? Well I'm not sure. It's a very complex issue. That's why various organizations are studying the effects of what we do. Do I like WT? I'm not sure of that either, but it will be interesting to see what data they gather and what their suggestions are.

Are WT's methods extreme/radical? Possibly. Maybe that is what is needed to restore the native runs. Sometimes it takes radical movement in one direction to get the parties opposed to move at all in the other direction. Certainly WT's methods/motives are not meant to bring an end to fishing. It would be like insinuating that the NRA is trying to ban the use of guns...

For me, the jury is still out because like most people on this board, more information needs to be collected and analyzed, by both the conservation groups and us as sport fisherman.

It seems like the purpose of these discussions should be for people to lay out the facts instead of just forming an oppinion based upon heresay.

Twig,
I dont know if you have done this or not. But if you want to do some reading on the issue go to your favorite search engine (I like google) and type in what you want info on i.e "salmon hatchery vs wild" or maybe try "salmon recovery".
There is a ton of info out there suporting both sides of the issue.Thats how I found the artical I posted above.
Also there is a book called "The great salmon hoax" there is some good info in there also.
You can find the book online at
http://www.buchal.com/tgsh/chap7/Table%20of%20Contents.htm

Twig, I don't think there is much to debate here. Habitat issues are the root of the problem.


Hatcheries clearly are not the ideal, but in the face of poor habitat what can you do? You can fix it but mainly that takes lots of time, $s, and the discpline not to mess things up again once they're fixed.

I don't think this is practical for the near future. Do you think anyone is seriously considering removing grand coulee for the sake of salmon passage?

The question is what can be done to improve the lot of wild salmon. I certainly think that banning all hatcheries would help a little. But that would put all fishing pressure on wild fish and some runs clearly cannot withstand that.

I think the better alternative is do what we can to fix the root of the problem (ie first stop all futher habitat degradation and then improve habitat that has been degraded).

I think WTs arguement about hatcheries is BS. There positionas I understand it is that stopping hatcheries is a good idea beacuse its easier to do than fixing the habitat. I don't dispute that changing or stopping current hatchery practices might help a little but thats not at the heart of the problem. Habitat is the biggest problem by far.

Using the logic of treating minor problems first, an ER doctor when faced with a patient with a beesting and gunshot wound to the chest would treat the beesting because it is easier.

Not hard to figure out what would happen to such a patient. Likewise given WTs strategy, I think you can guess what the future might hold for salmon if we continue on this path.

This just doesn't seem like a reasonable solution.

Its about the habitat

I agree that it is about the habitat! Unfortunately, historically, most of it resides above the dams.

As for Hatcheries, historically there were runs that were specific to each and every river system. What has happened now is that we've taken a relatively small genetic pool and dispersed it into waters where they are not native, thus, we're polluting the native genes. We've managed to wipe out in only a century what has taken millions of years to refine.

So while I understand that hatcheries allow us to fish, I also understand that we've become potentially short sighted in that we are unwilling to give up our fishing in the face of allowing the native species to become extinct.

So where do I stand? I still don't know, but I do know that we as a species have historically made poor choices due to our arrogance when it comes to mother nature, ie, putting in dams in the first place!

You're right on Geoduck!!! Hatcheries are a much easier target than undoing the Bolt decision, taking away Commercial Fishing rights, removing dams or even making marginal changes to streams.

grandpa/ Aunty M you are wrong... You also are NOT spokesmen for Washington Trout yet you spend all this time and effort telling us what they want then complain to me when i do the same..

Grandpa you still have failed to answer the two questions i asked at the very beginning..

1. Have you read the HGMP's
2. What specific actions do thoes plans suggest to addredd the KNOWN problems at their WDFW hatcheries.


Habitat.... habitat restoration works for some species in some situations where it can be effective it should be used..

I have relayed this story many times in this forum and others.

The Washougal early in the 1900 and latw 1800's and up until 1950's had a known population of 1500+ wild summer steelhead. This number was taked by the deprtment in index pool counts. the actual population could have been twice that number because of other pool and run timing compared to surveys conducted.. At the time these runs were going on the Washougal had it's headwaters ravaged by forest fire twice tas the subject of intense logging and mining . The river had 3 dams and a grist mill all of which impeaded fish passage. On top of that the canyon was continually filled with loggs creating splash dams which were dynamites to send the logs down river. Also the Camas papermill poured all kinds on untreeted waste directly into the river mouth... All that and every year it had 1500+ wild summer steelhead

1960's as a result of the mitchell act the Washougal hatchery is built instantly the Washougal becomes a popular fishing destination because of all the fish.. Soon it is in the top 5 steelhead rivers in the state.. Putting out fish on par with the rivers like the any river but the Cowlitz do now people caught and killed everything they kept including wild steelhead!! soon the numbers began to dwindle and the sizes of fish began to be all about the same. The fish moved from the runs and pockets into the deeper pools.. A very small group of anglers ( many of whom are now or who have been leaders in WT) banded together and after years of fighting against the department and groups like the Northwest stelheaders finially got wild steelhead release on the Washougal.. but not until wild steelhead runs were in the low hundreds and commonly under 100 fish..

Since that day the habitat in the upper watershed is no longer logged or mined all the dams are gone some of the habitat has restored itself some habitat has been restored by man. All wild steelhead must be released and still the fish are nor recovering!! Good ocean conditions and yet the fish are not recovering.. Why is it that with improved habitat and harvest conditions are these fish not recovering??????? I'll give you a hint.. It opened in the 1960's when the decline started..

On the other hand Chum salmon are very easy to restore if you don't harvest them.. all they need is clean offchannel gravel and a decent estuary enviroment. Thats why the Columbia is seeing a huge comeback on it's wild Chums

Every species has it's own needs Just cause the fishing is good for once species doesn'r mean all is well it just means a lot of hatchery fish are surviving and thats all it means..

If all a person wants id fish to bonk on the head then thats what they should say. They shouldn't make up exuses why they disagree with someone else.

I personally think that the survival of the species is more important than my desire to go fishing..

Robert,
Maybe you should post those studies on the effects of hatchery salmon on wild salmon again. That shut up the anti WT people the last time. I noticed none of them even bothered to comment on the science.

Twig ... I don't believe I ever said wild fish populations are healthy and that we are not in need of reforms in all areas of concern including hatcheries. I said this year is one of the best I can remember in terms of FISHING.
Washington Trout does not discuss FISHING...Save the wild salmon for the sake of saving them which is ok but don't try to sell me on the idea that WT is concerned about fishing. They are not and I am. I am a sportsfishing advocate all day long. It has nothing simplistic, as Rob says, to do with "bonking".

Geoduck you are pretty set that habitat is the only problem...fix that and there you go! All fixed. Not so. The problem is not simplistic and the solution isn't either.

Rob: As far as answering your questions goes, what good would any answer do? You are a blind supporter of WT and all the hogwash they send out. Just because you try to put a different saddle on the old nag doesn't mean you've got a better horse. I don't agree with anything you say so get over it and move on.