http://easylink.playstream.com/katu/030919salmon_stampede.wvx
Holy Smokes, hope we dont snag or net them out of existence.......would it be safe to say theres enough for everyone to go around?

Too bad our wild runs aren'thaving much of a benefit.. neither have our hatchery steelhead runs..

Lets just hope that the wild fish aren't overwhelmed on their spawning beds this fall. Just as lower columbia river Coho have been for almost a century and now are extinct in most every river if not all..

Rob...you and Ramon are just beside yourselves aren't you...best salmon fishing in 40 years.....record runs.........anglers out enjoying their sport all over the state....

Here you go again: "The sky is falling..the sky is falling..."

Thanks to 5 years of great ocean conditions, nature has done what nothing else could do and salmon are returning in mass numbers...and there are tons of "wild" fish in the mix too...

Sorry Rob...sell your doom and gloom somewhere else..no one's buying it.

Right on grandpa!

Cowlitzfisherman

of course the fact canada has curtailed commercial fishin' and bought out over 1000 commercial licenses might have a little somethin' to do with it too......????

Many factors have contributed to increased run size and health. Less harvest and some habitat and hatchery reforms....notice I say some because we still have a long way to go. Good ocean conditions and lots of feed helped enormously.

It's definitely nice that we're going to have a good year but just 5 seasons ago, Coho were'n't able to be caught in Oregon because of their threatened status. We've had good ocean conditions but now we're facing El Nino again, and that doesn't do so well...2 seasons ago they barely let enough water go over Bonneville and so the next 2 years will probably be tough.

As you mention, enjoy it while you can but unfortunately, the trend for the past 50 odd years is bleak.

Thanks Twig some people cannot see past their doubled over rod to whats really going on..

I am very happy that people are finding good fishing but an excess of hatchery fish does not a recovery make. There has been no noticible increase in wild salmon and steelhead anywhere in the Columbia river system

Oops thats not true Lower Columbia Chum salmon are on a dramatic increase coming back from nothing to tens of thousands of fish without any intervention by man..

Actually there are alot of wild fish in the hordes coming back to their native streams. I don't think any of us are sitting there at the redds counting wild versus hatchery. All in all I'd say this year is possibly a good sign. Not a recovery but a good sign.

I am hopeful. My thoughts echo Grandpa's, it is a healthy sign but no recovery yet. It looks like we are at a peak of healthy ocean conditions for salmon. Let's work on improving the wild returns and the down years won't hurt so much.

I have an idea that you are right!

Perhaps if all fishers were scrutinized and controlled by the same enforcement we'd also be better off. Tribes "self-police"....I am doing some research right now on the apalling Geoduck harvest imbalance. The rigorous rules non-treaty commercial harvesters undergo is good for the resource until you realize what is going on with the tribes who supposedly police themselves. Unbelieveable! Same goes for the nets. If the tribes string their nets in Grays Harbor this fall I will know it is time for another war. That run of Chinook is NOT of hatchery origin and is weak. The fishery is closed to sports fishers....Let's just see if the nets go in. If they do all I can say is that all the hatchery reform in the friggin world will not do much to mitigate the damage the nets cause.

Indians "Self-Police"
There's another OXYMORON to add to the list, right next to "Native-Pride!!"
We won't be holding our breath for that one.

Dont you think that an abundance of hatchery fish would actually dilute the catch rates of Wild fish, and in the end result in less of an impact to wild fish because of the "Safety in numbers" factor?

News flash! URB's are wild fish on their way to spawn in the hanford reach. That first feed of the clipped fish was footage from springer season. Come on now Rob, I thought you were better than that.

Yay hatcheries!!!!

The various reports coming frm the straights (all summer long) regarding wild versus hatchery catch rates would strongly suggest that wild fish are doing fine.

Up river brights are not all wild!!

I know that the Klickitat hatchery raises Up river brites and i'd bet many other hatcheries in the mid and upper columbia do as well.

I would actually think that an abundance of hatchery fish would cause MORE wild fish to be caught by anglers because wild fish are more aggressive and an huge hatchery run will increase angling pressure and therefore more wild fish weould be caught..

Columbia River nets kill the most wild fish...not the hatcheries.

Grandpa please feel free to provide any statistical scientific data.. Any at all please.. not disagree with you entirely but thats a bold statment that should be backed up with soma facts.. If you think the hatcheries do no harm you need to do some reading..

I never said NO harm Rob....I said the nets do MORE harm

Alright, I tried to stay out of this but I just have to speak up if grandpa and I actually agree on something (sort of).

Grandpa is absolutely right that commercial netting continues to be a major obstacle to salmon recovery in the Columbia. Taken at face value, netting obviously does directly kill more fish than hatcheries. (Anyone who has taken the time to familiarize themselves with the totality of WT's positions will not be surprized by this statement.)

But here's where the "sort of" comes in. You can't seperate hatchery policy from harvest policy; they are fingers on the same hand. Put simply, the nets wouldn't be in the water without the hatchery fish, and they'll never get out of the water as long as the hatcheries continue to produce at current levels. That may be the most damaging aspect of hatchery production: it promotes and allows harvest levels that the wild runs cannot sustain. Hatchery runs do not take harvest pressure off wild fish, they add to it.

It might be true that selective sport fishing could be managed in a way to harvest hatchery fish with less impact on wild runs (it has not been adequately tested), but that would only require production at a small fraction of current levels. The thing that many of you seem to misunderstand is that the salmon-hatchery program (let's leave steelhead out for the moment) has nothing to do with sport fishing. Any benefit to sport fishers is purely incidental. Hatcheries are a subsidy for commercial fishing, pure and simple, paid for with your taxes.

This is actually the sort of thing I'm uncomfortable talking about, because WT by charter takes no position on alocation issues; we do not represent the interests of ANY user group. I've been trying to leave it to you guys to figure out on your own that the harvest- and hatchery-management standards advocated by WT may be more compatible with recreational fishing than you seem to believe.

As far as the "record" runs on the Columbia go, it is a complete illusion. First of all, the runs are comprised of hatchery fish by several orders of magnitude; it has nothing to do with any meanigful recovery of native salmon populations in the Columbia. If you may be satisfied with a future without wild fish and without healthy wild fish habitat, simply because the hatcheries provide you with satisfactory entertainment, WT is not. Second, the run size is NOT bigger than historical run sizes. The runs in the early part of the 20th century (all wild) that this run supposedly beats were subjected to open ocean exploitation rates of 90%, making the actual total runs considerably larger than what we're seeing today.


Ramon Vanden Brulle
Washington Trout

C'mon Auntie, can't you be nice? I'm trying to meet you folks halfway here. You and I AGREE about commercial fishing. In fact I dare say that if WT didn't work on anything else, you might be a member, based on our commercial-harvest positions.

And actually, industrialized commercial salmon fishing and hatheries appeared in the NW about the same time. The first west coast salmon hatchery started production on the Sacramento River in the 1870s, and there were several hatcheries opperating on the Columbia before the turn of the century. Early 20th century hatcheries in Grays Harbor and on Lake Quinault were actually owned and run by cannery operations (trying to cut out the fishing middleman). Large scale hatchery schemes were operating in the NW long before wholesale habitat degradation ocurred, and even before the major declines of commercial catch rates (read Jim Lichatowitch's "Salmon Without Rivers").

But that's really neither here nor there relative to today's reality. Hatchery-salmon production (particularly in the Columbia) subsidizes commercial and tribal fishing; it makes it possible. They cannot be seperated. By supporting current levels of hatchery production, you indirectly support current levels of commercial harvest. If you believe, as WT does, that curent harvest levels are too high, and you are working to reduce those levels, then you are necessarily working to reduce levels of hatchery production.

WDFW runs 165 salmon and steelhead hatchery programs in Puget Sound and in the Columbia Basin (plus another dozen or so programs on the coast). If you think that number is about right, then you should actually thank the commercial fishing industry. If you think the number is excessive, then our positions are closer than you may believe.

Ramon Vanden Brulle,
Washington Trout

You keep your ugly paws offa my hatcheries!!!

Alright Auntie, I apologize. I was just trying to lighten things up a bit. As always, you were just as sweet as pie.

But you fail to address my point about hatcheries and commerical harvest being intrinsicly linked. I thought you supported reducing commercial harvest. Maybe I've got you confused with someone else.

WT has repeatedly made a strong scientific case for our positon on hatcheries; see our website. It is not based on whim. It is based on reams and reams of published science by dozens of independent researchers and independent science review panels. For just one example, see the Hatchery-Supplementation Review published this past June by the NW Power Planning Council's Independent Science Advisory Board, which advises BPA and NMFS on Salmon conservation and recovery management in the Columbia Basin. We did not make this stuff up, or even contract the studies; we just read and understood them.

And I'm sorry; the history of hatcheries in the NW is well documented. Everything I wrote above is supported by that documentation.

Ramon Vanden Brulle,
Washington Trout

Ramon,
This linc http://www.msaj.com/papers/commfish.htm
says that there is very little documentation of what hatcherys did prior to the 1930's.

duroboat,

As I said, it's not that relevent to the realities of harvest/hatchery management today, but here is a basic timeline of hatchery history in WA:

1872 First west coast hatchery
1895 First WA hatchery
1920 17 hatcheries in WA
1960 56 WA hatcheries
1990 75 WA hatcheries: (producing 70% of salmon/steelhead in Columbia)
2000 Almost 100 WDFW, 30 tribal, and 10 Federal facilities in WA
TODAY:
313 salmon/steelhead hatcheries in the Northwest

This data refers to hatchery FACILITIES. Keep in mind that many facilities acount for more than one PROGRAM. For instance, the Wallace Rriver hatchery produces fall fingerling chinook, fall yearling chinook, and summer yearling chinook. Many hatcheries produce more than one species.

My only point here is that hatcheries have been in WA almost as long as we have, and weren't necessarily "invented" solely as a "response" to salmon declines.

Ramon Vanden Brulle,
Washington Trout

Thank you Ramon for trying to get along with your biggest critics. Due to the fact that I have gainful employment NFR and only volunteer status in FR areas I don't have all the documentation I wish I had. Correct me if I am wrong but does not federal and state law mandate viable commercial fisheries? Also on the Columbia the hatcheries are mitigation for the adverse effects of the dams on the fishery. Correct? The commissioners who were defendants in your last lawsuit often-times defend their legal mandate to promote commercial fishing. The language has been "viable" for commercial fishing and "quality" for sports fishing.

The 3 "Hs" are all inseparable cogs in the recovery wheel....Harvest...hatcheries..habitat.
I see a balance between all three and not elimination of any one as the answer to the future of salmon..and of course, fishing.

Tell me , if you will, what sense it makes to curtail Chinook fishing in Grays Harbor (wild run) and yet allow netting? As long as things like that go on I can only resist one sided cures like hatchery closure.

I hope you can see some bright spots as I do. No one , especially me, should be painting this year's salmon run as the light at the end of the tunnel or proof that we have all done our job in recovering the threatened runs. All I know is that , for me, this has been a year like no other for sports fishing. I will also say that more of the fish I released were wild or atleast had adipose fins than those that did not.

It's just that lawsuit weapon that I really object to. It makes it tough to listen to logical arguments. So many environmental and animal rights groups are using the courts to force their agenda on the majority that anyone who uses that tactic runs the risk of being lumped in with all the much less logical groups. Atleast that's how I see it.

Grandpa
I personally agree there needs to be a balance between hatchery and wild stocks however the status quo is not by any means a balance! What we have now in nearly every salmon and steeljead river in the state pumped completely full of hatchery fish.. Any move towards balance HAS to be a reduction in hatchery production.. Anything else is not an attempt to balance anything..

Rob...many things will work together to achieve the common good. When commercial fishing interests stop directing fisheries policy perhaps hatchery output can focus more on helping wild fish survive instead of subsizing the dinosaurs in the netting business.