.............................................

Grandpa

I usually don't get involved in the Democrat/Republican debates……but that one was really funny!! :p

Cowlitzfisherman

Plan? They don't need no stinkin plan.

Grandpa: Don' t you evev get riered of bieng wrong?

100 Members of Congress Co-Sponsor Salmon Planning Act


Thursday, November 06, 2003

Washington, DC - Support for protecting the Northwest's economy and salmon runs reached a milestone today, with 100 House members signing on to the bipartisan Salmon Planning Act. Introduced by Representatives Jim McDermott (D-WA) and Thomas Petri (R-WI), this bill has three main elements - a science analysis by National Academy of Sciences (NAS) of current and anticipated salmon recovery actions, General Accounting Office (GAO) studies on how to best transition local economies to a free-flowing lower Snake River and authority to the Army Corps of Engineers to remove the four lower Snake River dams, if dam removal is deemed necessary by the federal agencies charged with protecting salmon and complying with tribal treaties.

"What this is really about is ensuring the region has a strong economy and healthy wild salmon runs," said Michael Garrity, associate director, federal dams program, American Rivers. "This bill is a step toward a comprehensive solution, a vision for the future that works for people, salmon and the economy."

The federal salmon plan, which was recently deemed illegal under the Endangered Species Act by a federal court judge, required aggressive efforts at habitat protection and restoration and increased water flows, but was implemented at less than 30 percent this past year. Even if it had been implemented at 100 percent, scientists say that the surest way to avert extinction and restore salmon to abundant harvestable levels is to remove the four lower Snake River dams.

Isn't that their plan for just about everything?

Hmmm

Who cares about what the dem's and rep's think abou salmon plans. lets face it this is not an issue that will be decided upon by elected officials. Salmon plans are developed by people who have been entrenched beauracracys longer than any elected official has been in office. presidents and congressmen come and go but beaurocrats are eternal ( at least in their own minds).
Therefore it is thoes individuals in these government agencies that really set the tone and are who we as sport anglers need to influence.
That said this would be my proposal for a salmon plan.

1. REQUIRE!!! opperators of all dams to make habitats downstream of their facilities optimal for salmon and steelhead year around. ( no more drying out chum redds) and things like that

2, eliminate road building loggin and development in critical salmon habitata or areas that could affect such habitat.

3. Make hatchery plans for 3 purposes
a. harvest fisheries where wild stocks are depleted to extinction. Such rivers should be planted heavily for the purpose of a high yeld fisher for sport commercial and tribal fisheries. There would be few such fisheries but there would be some..

b. total wild rivers. These are to be in every location where good populations of wild fish still exsist. Focus on these rivers will be no hatcheries with catch and release regulations that also require selective gear single barbles hooks.. This is not creating " botique " fisheries!!! it's sustainable sport fishing opportunity..

c. mixed stock fisheries. These are to take place where hatchery stocks would have little impact on wild runs and would consist of as an example Wild winter steelhead but hatchery fall chinook and coho but NOT hatchery winter steelhead.. The purpose is to provide some harvest opportunity in areas where there may not be a "harvest river".

Commercial Net fishing in the columbia will be terminated and a series of fish traps created where fishermen will be trained to properly handle and release ALL wild fish. Tribal fisheries would be opperated in the same manner and every single hatcher fish would be marked.

Storm run off would be dealt with in a meaningful way so that urban and suburban streams don't have lethal levels of toxic chemicals in them

In all aspects the overall survival of each strain of fish in each river will be the overriding factor in determining what activities can take place in a watershed. In other words no political decisions. Everything that happens must have a strong scientific rationale to support it.

anyway yes i know it's a pipe dream so what. WHat choice would such a plan have but to work???

There you go again with your wild only catch and release streams. Let's hear an all inclusive plan that benefits everyone and not just you.

Rob..I actually agree with several of your ideas. Just not the extreme ones.

Grandpa that was an all inclusive plan.. requireing the release of all wild steelhad is NOT extreme it's common sence and any plan that does not require the release of all wild steelhead is doomed to failure.. failure ( what we have now) is extreme.. we extremely error on the side of harvest.

Rob: Your plan seems like heaven. In many ways it mirrors B.C. They have a few rivers, like the Vedder, heavily planted for intense sport catch and kill fisheries and to support commercial and native fisheries. Most of their river have no hatcheries whatsoever and they are doing fine. Some like the Thompson are catch and release only. Others have limited catch and kill fisheries for salmon with total catch and release for steelhead. It’s a sensible plan. Now try to get anything, like universal supper for it.

Those who are opposed to any catch and release fisheries seem unaware of the huge numbers of anglers who actually prefer it. Both the Yakima and the Sky saw large increases in the number of anglers once total catch and release was in place. (In the Sky. I’m referring to the spring catch and release steelhead fishery.) It’s not some sort of elitist fishery if more anglers use it than they did when it was catch and kill. Those who need to kill a fish could still do so in one of the rivers heavily planted for that purpose.

Just for the record...I kill very few fish and catch lots of them. If I keep a steelhead it is on the Quinault. Once all hatchery fish are marked we can expand catch and release practices across the board. Until that day we can't. that is if we want to include the majority of fishers. As we move up into Canada and into Alaska things are different...mainly because of population and lack of massive urbanization as we have here.

grandpa what does marking all fish have to do with catch and release??? keep the marked ones release all the unmarked.. whats complicated about that???

DUH? There are tons of fish from hatcheries with adipose fins....Not everyone out there fishing can smell a hatchery fish like you can.

Grandpa:

Very reasonable sounding ideas. In fact I agree with a good deal of what you said. But . . . You knew there would be a but, didn't you?

By having some rivers or some months on some rivers as 100% C&R you can include all fishers, even those who prefer the 100% C&R scenario. Look at the Yakima dn see how extremely popular fisheries can be. But . . . I sure don't want all or even a majority of our rivers to be C&R. I understand that many, perhaps most, sports anglers, want at least some opportunities to bring home fish. Like you, I catch many and kill few, but every year I take one special day and kill two wild trout . I relish that day and would feel deprived if I had no chance to do that. But . . . We can do like southern B.C., which is very urban, and have some rivers VERY heavily hatchery supplemented, where we can all catch and kill some fish , and the remainder where we can reasonable expect to catch a wild trout or steelhead, but where we must severe limit or eliminate retention.

To assure that many of us can enjoy a quality experience there will need to be closed waters, such a spawning tributaries, restricted waters and severely restricted waters., in addition to heavily planted hatchery waters.

grandpa so because some hatchery fish are not marked people shouldn't practice catch and release??? I don;t agree with that logic

We wouldn't want to release a hatchery fish back into the wild would we. Wouldn't even one unmarked hatchery fish comingling with a wild fish by one to many?

Why not do everything possble to prevent further contamination of the wild genetics?

Or is that attitude to much like the philosophy of an infamous german from the 30's?

Plunker of course having hatchery fish spawn in the wild is a bad thing.. compareing that philosophy to nazism is a laughable analogy.
Telling people to keep all fish until all hatchery fish are clipped because the unclipped ones might be hatchery fish is just silly..

How about requireing the release of all fish because it could be a wild fish that was clipped as a juvenile by an unethical sportsman. ( happens on the N. Umpqua all the time)

On the other hand I was trying to make a compromise for the sake of all. If i truly had it my way all wisheries would be wild only single barbless artificial no retention..

I guess this teaches me to try to make a compromise with unreasonable people..

Plunker

Your last sentence took the words right out of my mouth!

Isn't it just amazing how all other species can interbreed within its own specie and continue to survive, but yet fish in some peoples minds, don't follow the biological rule of nature.

Unfortunately, wild fish don't live or survive in glass bubbles and many other factors are most likely working on their decline other than just hatcheries and intermixing. Some areas will likely continue to support self-sustaining runs, while other areas will continue to decline. Fish will continue to survive even when many wild fish stocks have vanished! It's been going on since time.

Rob:

Why is it a "bad thing" to have hatchery fish spawn in the wild? It's working just fine on the Upper Cowlitz, so why won't it work in other areas too? In your mind, is it also considered to be a "bad thing" to have wild fish stray into other rivers and spawn, mix and compete with their own native fish? Since those strays don't belong there, and are not native to that system, shouldn't those strays be bonked to save the pure native strain that currently exists in that system? What is the big difference?

One could certainly make the case that if wild fish are so essential, then all fishing on those stocks should be curtailed! That would also mean no more catch and release seasons either. So it would appear that it's "OK" for the people who enjoy there catch and release fishery, that also causes a "taking" (hook and release mortally rate), but at the same time, other fishers that enjoy the "taking" of hatchery fish must give up there sport, and share to those that only enjoy and promote a "wild fish" hook and release fishery.

In cases were many river are void of "wild stocks" in sufficient numbers to ever become fully "self sustaining", why would anyone not want to utilize the river for fish production by useing hatchery stocks that may very well adapt to the river someday, and may even become self sustaining over time?

I don't really know what the actual numbers are, but one would think that there is less then 10-20% of our rivers left that really have viable stocks of wild fish. Wouldn't it make more sense to enhance those few rivers that are left that still carry viable stocks of wild fish, and promote hatchery supplementation in the remaining 80% that doesn't?


Cowlitzfisherman

Rob.. I never said that I oppose C&R..In fact, I stated that I keep few fish..that means I release most fish. I do not believe your strategy of C&R only though. I agree with CFM in saying that if wild stocks are in such fragile condition in some rivers by your philosophy I think you should give up fishing altogether to escape being hypocritical. You are so adament about saving wild fish by any means necessary but then go on about C&R only rivers like the Yakima. It sounds to me that what you really want is the "experience" as you call it. No crowds, no hatchery fish..just you, your fly rod and the wild fish. Fine for you but not a popular exclusionary idea. So many arguments here stress "the right way" to fish...looking at the ridiculous flossing thread. on and on about what is acceptable.

When I talk about hatchery fish not being clipped I should clarify that I am all for C&R and am only pointing out that not clipping all hatchery fish is a cop out and an appeasement to the tribes. They don't want the hatchery fish to be marked so they can continue to harvest wild fish falling back on the double standard. As more and more hatchery fish are marked more and more C&R seasons will develop. Witness the salmon season this summer in areas 5&6. A very successful season that gave opportunity to fishers targetting big Kings who hadn't been able to target them in years. So I am all for C&R as long as we concentrate on the overall plan and not just a few boutique fisheries like the Yakima. The Yakima is a great fishery and I am all for it. I just think some of your arguments seem selfish. Compromise is tough but more and more necessary every day.