I am indeed biased...in favor of science, rather than emotion.

The best way to keep the interactions from being detrimental to the wild run is to prevent the interactions.

Fish on...

Todd

So my question for todd, if you are so anti hatchery pro wild fish when are u going to stop targeting wild fish and Producing tackle geared toward targeting wild fish? I read these posts and wonder how you can be so pro wild recovery and yet still fish for them. I think everyone here agrees that they would love to see wild steelhead numbers rebound. But we pretty much dont have a season in ps rivers now so whats the point. Once they are closed they wont reopen the op isnt far behind now. Pretty soon we will have nowhere to fish and then what? Try hatcherys again

Deerlick,
Who's responsibility is it to protect wild stocks, the tackle manufacturer's?

Also, what do you think is a bigger threat to wild stocks, C&R fishing or hatchery fish? Consider what happens to wild populations when their numbers are low. Do the fishermen flock to the river when fish numbers are down? If we increase hatchery plants with dwindling wild fish, what happens?

I can't speak to PS rivers, but here in OR, we have some very stable wild steelhead rivers. They could be better (some are getting better), but they are stable and provide good fishing at times.

I believe if ur so for protecting something quit killing it yourself. The science is not accurate so and keeps changing so who do u believ. I believe I wont have a steelhead fishery in this state in the future thanks to extremists.

Oregon also doesnt have tribal gillnetting on those streams correct

I'm pro sportfishing, I'm pro-hatchery fish, and I'm pro-wild fish.

I'm pro doing what is best for all of them.

I'm anti doing something that I think is bad for all of them...broodstock programs.

Fish on...

Todd

Did you not read OncyT' post, plenty of science in favor.....

Todd, the real question is do you think the powers to be will ever rid our rivers of Hatchery fish?.

If not why not use a hatchery fish that will help when mingling occurres instead of waste the wild that mingles with the out of basin stock. The fish could be taken from surplus, that would be destined for native harvest.

We would all like to see our rivers filled with wild fish, and no hatchery supplementation, but some understand that is a pipe dream, that both the Treaty Tribes and the Economic driven main stream will never let happen.

When hatchery are no longer run segregated, and mingle. And the fish above escapement are deemed surplus, and destined for harvest, why not use some of those fish for Broodstock. Creates fewer net days on wild fish, as we are using a portion of the surplus, does not mine the escapement.

And if the Wild that mingles with an OOB stock is considered a wasted wild fish, and if same fish mingles with an F1 it's offspring have an 85% fitness. This does not seem like Emotions. But working to make a stronger wild fish when they mingle

Just to be clear, "science" does not necessarily favor any option. What the results of some recent studies show is not nearly as cut and dried as Todd suggests. I posted a response to this statement over a year ago, with citations that show that not all hatchery programs lead to a loss of abundance as Todd suggests. Here is a link to that thread:

http://www.piscatorialpursuits.com/forum...html#Post740838

The results of those BACI analyses are still valid. Additionally since that post there is are at least two studies on spring Chinook in Johnson Creek on the S. Fork Salmon River and Catherine Creek on the Grande Ronde that did not show loss of productivity.

just one question.

if hatchery/hatchery pairings in the wild produce zero adults how come the Cowlitz above barrier now has wild fish in it? all they did was truck over thousands of hatchery fish for a few years.

I don't recall Todd ever saying that all hatchery programs lead to a loss of abundance.

Broodstock programs, however, all do...because they take wild fish and kill them to make hatchery fish, which are then killed.

When we are talking about hatchery/hatchery pairings resulting in stastically "zero" recruits, we are talking about Chambers Creek fish that were Johnny Appleseeded all over the northwest. I believe the Cowlitz program is using some sort of fish that is "most close" to what the hatchery wild fish would be, were there any or many there.

Fish on...

Todd

If this is not talking about abundance, I'm not sure what "less fish than if the wild fish had been left in the river" means. The BACI analyses that have been done to date (that I am familiar with) don't support that statement nor do all the studies support the statement that you always have lower productivity.

Every time I see these types of absolute statements on this forum I intend to try to provide more accurate information.

Every time.

I am not talking about "all hatchery programs", I am talking about wild broodstock programs that kill wild fish to make hatchery fish that are harvested.

If by "more abundant" you are counting the hatchery fish, well then you are right...but if you mean more wild fish then you are not.

I am not talking about hatchery fish, I am talking about wild fish.

There are some accurate statements for you

Fish on...

Todd

The BACI analyses that I referenced (again the only ones that I know of) looked at only natural-origin recruits from populations with integrated broodstock programs (that kill wild fish for the hatchery broodstock) versus reference populations with no hatchery program. This analysis did not show the absolute results that you suggest. (Even more accurate!)

I'd appreciate some links to that information if you'd please send them over...I'm only aware of short term jumps in abundance, followed by going right back down to, and then below where they were before, or some models that say "there should be more" but that haven't actually been put to the test in actual population.

Thanks, and have a good Christmas!

Fish on...

Todd

Todd, do the tribes not get to harvest wild surplus fish, fish over escapement?.

They do, and I am saying take a portion of what would be allocated to them, for Broodstock production, this in turn would also cut down the net days they fish for those fish, and possible allow more even to pass.

No wild fish would be lost or wasted, they would just not end up in nets. Right now they are wasted, so let's put them to work.

Cncfish,

Your question regarding the "not statistically different from zero" success of hatchery fish spawning in the natural environment has been covered here before, but a refresher may be helpful. The above quote applies more to some hatchery stocks than it does to others. Chambers Creek hatchery winter runs are the best fit to the quote because they are notorious for not producing NORs (Natural Origin Recruits). But even Chambers Ck have experienced some success since their genotype is found in varying degrees (from zero to fairly high) in some wild steelhead.

A major reason for their near "zero" success is because Chambers Ck steelhead have been specially selected for their early return timing and especially their early spawning timing. This places them out of synch with normal spawn timing of wild steelhead, which reduces the incidence of H x W matings. It also places them out of synch with normal steelhead fry emergence timing. Since spawn timing is very closely correlated with survival, being out of synchrony is not a good thing.

Hatchery fish in the Cowlitz have been transported to the upper basin upstream of the dams. Spring chinook, coho, and steelhead. Coho have been most successful, but most of us expected that because coho are the easiest of the salmonids to work with. They seem to adapt more easily than the others. Wild coho can be taken into hatchery environments and domesticated more readily than spring chinook or steelhead. On the flip side, hatchery coho can be stocked in the natural environment where they more readily re-adapt to natural conditions.

With regard to steelhead, the Cowlitz hatchery cultured both early-timed Chambers Ck steelhead and late timed steelhead that originated from native Cowlitz stock. Over the decades there was overlap and some mixing between the two, but the late timed steelhead still show a genetic difference from Chambers Ck fish. The late timed hatchery steelhead were chosen for re-introduction into the upper basin for this reason. They have reproduced successfully, and as generations go by, they should be as successful as normal wild steelhead that have no hatchery lineage.

The spring chinook, similar to steelhead, have been slower than coho to re-adapt to natural production, but wild springers are also regularly returning. Of course, getting the long-delayed juvenile fish passage facility installed will give natural production the biggest possible boost to the upper Cowlitz re-introductions.

Sg

This an entirely different question than the biological one, and comes with it's own set of serious problems...not the first of which is that there is no way the tribe is giving up any of its fish for us to have a broodstock program, that will be done with our half of the harvestable surplus.

Let's pretend for a minute, however, that for some reason the tribes decided to give up their harvest allocation for a broodstock program...when that program starts returning fish, who do you think will want half of them?

What else do you think they will be netting up while they are netting their half of them?

The tribes will want to harvest half of them, and they'll be netting up wild fish at the same time...wild fish which are now diminished in number thanks to killing a bunch of them to make hatchery fish.

Both the biology and the management issues continue to tell me that it's a folly to have broodstock programs.

Fish on...

Todd

We are not taking our half on many systems, so they are, and I don't want to add them on top of OOB stock, but to replace them. So no more clipped fish numbers would be returning to the system then current numbers. And no more net days then they currently have. So why do you think they would get more fish. Just trying to think of a better product when mingling occurres. Let's not take wild fish for harvest, use our numbers for Broodstock. How many wilds are bonked on the rivers that allow it, everyone is not like you and I that are happy with a pic, close down retention, and Broodstock. No more lost fish then we currently lose, and no more forgone opertunity, on systems that are not open for retention

Creating new wild broodstock programs COULD work on select drainages…. but they will NEVER work anywhere tribal gillnetting is allowed.

Any attempt to amplify abundance in this fashion can only result in GREATER impacts to the wild population.

As Todd has repeatedly said, we wouldn't be doing the wild fish any favors