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.