The problem with deliberately releasing unmarked fish in order to insure meeting egg-take goals is that you can't be sure about the number of wild fish in the egg-take. In order to run either an integrated or a segregated (essentially any) hatchery program you need to know the origin of each spawner.

It's not that difficult with a pectoral or ventral fin clip to verify it's an ACTUAL hatchery fish.....

But we don't really want to know how many true "native" fish we have left. That's a whole new can of worms that the higher power doesn't want to open....

Keith

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BiBHUu_wnUE

Your right! Little bits and pieces everywhere you look.

think this would be good for business if you were a guide on the cowlitz ?

For example, nearly 75,000 surplus hatchery coho returned to the Cowlitz River hatchery last year alone.

If we fail to harvest commercially these fish more efficiently, the likely alternative to address the level of hatchery straying is to cut hatchery production, which would have a profound effect on recreational, commercial and tribal fisheries.

http://www.ccapnw.org/databaseshowitem.aspx?id=33124

Wonder what the ad clip rate is at Cowlitz? If they want more caught clip more, instead of weeding through 10 of 1000's in the ocean.

All you have to do is use the CWT. Any agency person involved in broodstock collection or spawning surveys would be able to detect it as a hatchery origin fish. There are already CWT-only fish returning for double-index tagging.

At the hatchery I worked at, all fish with adipose fins were checked with wand, only a few with no pins in the nose, very low #'s.....over two thousand fish, I would say less than 10 and were likley just misses with the equipment as they were all clones. Large numbers of bucks compared to hens.

Yet so many people buy into the fact that they're being good by turning loose all those "wild" fish when they catch them...

Rather entertaining really....

Keith

anyone ??

I'll take it. Whoever picked the example of Cowlitz coho to show that something needs to be done about hatchery straying does not have much information about the Cowlitz watershed. First of all, despite having a very large coho program, these fish appear to home to the hatchery quite well and up until now, are not found spawning in the lower tributaries. So it appears that there is no problem in the lower river. As far as the upper watershed goes, whatever composition of hatchery/wild fish is desired, the managers can already control that by using the hatchery and dams in place. It appears to me that in this particular case there is no need to increase selective harvest, and it is unlikely that there is a need to cut hatchery production. (It's unlikely anyway, given the mitigation responsibility of TPU)

Stlhdr1 the hatchery I worked at is on Puget Sound and the overall return was just over what was needed to maintain the hatchery at current #'s.........so my thought is this may be necessary in some instances...............its not likley that this small creek would maintan a king run by itself.

Seems to be the case when you look at hathery releases or really dig in and get the actual release clip rates....

Just remember, just because it say's X # were clipped on paper doesn't always mean that's the precise # clipped vs released... I've talked to a few hatchery managers and they've all noted they have to get their fish back....

Keith

I talked to some hatchery managers, and they said........
Can't find any data that says there's a whole river full of unmarked hatchery fish?
Then just invent some.
The only hatchery CR stocks that are not ad clipped are Snake River fall chinook.
The only exception, which is federally mandated, is for fish designated for reintroduction, the only other exception is for research purposes.

Quit reading so much and actually get out and see for yourself... Go to some of the hatcheries in the area and observe...

Tell me again why we can harvest 1 adult WILD king in the Cowlitz right now? There certainly isn't a surplus of NATIVE FALL KINGS in that river..... There never has been since I've been fishing it.......................

Keith

stlhdr1, you should never hope to make any sense out of regulations for the Cowlitz.

freespool, there is still a fairly large number of unclipped Chinook being released in the Hanford Reach. Paid for by utility money, therefore not covered by the federal mandate.

Let me help you out Freetool......

WDFW EMERGENCY RULES

Quoted from the hyperlink:

An unexpected abundance of hatchery-produced fall chinook that have not been marked with a missing adipose fin are returning to the Cowlitz River this seasonThis action will increase fishing opportunity this season and allow for a transition before a season-long mark-selective fishery for hatchery salmon is expected to begin next year, when all hatchery fall chinook salmon returning to the Cowlitz river will be marked with a missing adipose fin. Really?? It's 2010, and they still can't get it right??

Hmmmm....... How does that happen? But the hatchery releases on paper show them to be clipped.......

Keith

Sorry, but that is a BS regulation and justification. The only unmarked fall Chinook (other than perhaps a double index tag group) coming back to the Cowlitz this year are 5-year olds and they generally make up ~5% of the returning population. Sorry, but that is a fact. The WDFW just folded to a small group of local screamers like they always do. If you don't believe me, ask yourself this. How could the department even know if there were a bunch of unmarked hatchery fall Chinook returning? Can't use scale reading to check freshwater growth rates like you can for hatchery coho.

Hanford Reach fish are URB's, retaining unclipped fish is legal.

You can't determine run complexity with a rod and reel, in fact you can't determine any fisheries science by using your own personal observations as a basis to create something.

freespool stated: "The only hatchery CR stocks that are not ad clipped are Snake River fall chinook."

I am correcting that incorrect statement. It had nothing to do with whether or not there was any kind of selective harvest.

http://www.oregonlive.com/environment/index.ssf/2010/10/tests_on_the_columbia_river_lo.html

Where this gear is being tested is just above the Lewis I believe, isn't that Warrior Rock/St Helens in the background.