#933967 - 07/10/15 11:26 AM
Re: wild steelhead management zones in Puget Sound
[Re: FleaFlickr02]
|
River Nutrients
Registered: 10/22/09
Posts: 3031
Loc: University Place and Whidbey I...
|
We've also proven that hatchery fish do nothing to help wild stocks recover, and in fact, they may do more harm than good in that capacity.
Oh really? Where does this proof exist? I'd be interested in seeing the evidence, as would thousands of other people. Easy there, Tasty. While I don't subscribe to any theory suggesting that hatchery fish are among the greatest obstacles to wild steelhead recovery, I think several decades of planting hatchery fish, without wild runs recovering, is pretty solid evidence that they haven't made any meaningful, positive impact on recovery. I suppose I should stop short of calling that "proof," but.... My point, like RUNnGUN's, was that it's probably time to rethink the purpose behind producing hatchery fish. I think they have significant value in places where degraded habitat makes in-river spawning largely non-productive. I can't prove it, but I have come to believe that their presence in systems with self-sustaining wild runs, while it does provide meaningful harvest opportunity, can have only negative impacts on the wild fish, if for no other reason than that they justify fisheries that impact wild fish, no matter how hard we try to avoid that result. I don't advocate closing rivers designated as wild gene banks, but I do think C&R should be the only type of fishing allowed on wild stocks, regardless of how "stable" those stocks may appear. The rules would be much easier to write (and follow) without having to make exceptions for the sake of weeding out hatchery fish. To the extent that a river system does not have a wild early steelhead run the planting of EWSH fills a nitch and provides both recreational opportunity and tribal commercial harvest values. Any potential adverse impact upon wild fish by those fishing for EWSH can and is mitigated by early season closures on the EWSH. Now, here is the rub. Your position is that any adverse impact on wild fish created by the presence of EWSH is unacceptable yet you propose a C&R fishery on those same wild fish which we all realize has some mortality as well as potential adverse impact on vitality.
_________________________
Remember to immediately record your catch or you may become the catch!
It's the person who has done nothing who is sure nothing can be done. (Ewing)
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#933974 - 07/10/15 01:13 PM
Re: wild steelhead management zones in Puget Sound
[Re: Fear_no_fish]
|
River Nutrients
Registered: 11/21/07
Posts: 7538
Loc: Olema,California,Planet Earth
|
Is there any watershed, anywhere, where a robust wild run of any salmonid coexists with a robust run of the same species produced in a hatchery? If not, then it might just be that biologically, ecologically, genetically, and politically they can't coexist IN THE SAME STREAM.
Where FW habitat is compromised then we can mitigate that loss with hatchery fish so long as they are harvested in that watershed. Our problem is that we put highly productive hatchery stocks (low escapement produces large adult runs) into the same areas where lower productivity wild runs exist and then fish at the hatchery rate.
Recovery won't take place until all marine mixed stock fisheries are closed. Once we have moved well towards recovery the marine fisheries can be re-opened as long as they don't impede the recovery of the weakest wild stock.
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#933980 - 07/10/15 04:06 PM
Re: wild steelhead management zones in Puget Sound
[Re: Carcassman]
|
Three Time Spawner
Registered: 12/29/99
Posts: 1604
Loc: Vancouver, Washington
|
Recovery won't take place until all marine mixed stock fisheries are closed. Once we have moved well towards recovery the marine fisheries can be re-opened as long as they don't impede the recovery of the weakest wild stock.
Dead on correct! However, there are huge differences in productivity even between wild stocks. So even a very modest mixed-stock fishery is likely to harvest those low productivity stocks to the point where they may not be sustainable. Not sure how to get around that issue, except to close the ocean fishery, and to leave it closed. Permanently. But how realistic is that?
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#933988 - 07/10/15 05:49 PM
Re: wild steelhead management zones in Puget Sound
[Re: cohoangler]
|
River Nutrients
Registered: 03/03/09
Posts: 4453
Loc: Somewhere on the planet,I hope
|
Not sure how to get around that issue, except to close the ocean fishery, and to leave it closed. Permanently. But how realistic is that? Not much until a federal judge says "You shall". Then the jig will be up. Until then not so much as the mixed stock harvesters will take a huge hit. It is not if that will happen but rather when. Our focus on habitat ( which is needed ) rather than come to Jesus and recognize the harvest has a huge impact on weak stocks. Depending on location either can be the driver we choose to not recognize this. Our bad and we all will pay right along with the fish on down the road.
_________________________
Dazed and confused.............the fog is closing in
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#934004 - 07/10/15 07:10 PM
Re: wild steelhead management zones in Puget Sound
[Re: FleaFlickr02]
|
Smolt
Registered: 04/16/14
Posts: 75
Loc: Lake Samish
|
We've also proven that hatchery fish do nothing to help wild stocks recover, and in fact, they may do more harm than good in that capacity.
Oh really? Where does this proof exist? I'd be interested in seeing the evidence, as would thousands of other people. Easy there, Tasty. While I don't subscribe to any theory suggesting that hatchery fish are among the greatest obstacles to wild steelhead recovery, I think several decades of planting hatchery fish, without wild runs recovering, is pretty solid evidence that they haven't made any meaningful, positive impact on recovery. How many steelhead supplementation programs currently exist or have existed in the past? I can't think of very many. If you believe that hatchery steelhead programs exist to bolster natural origin populations, your method of thinking is no different than that of a toothless redneck snagger. If you make the convoluted argument that wild steelhead have not recovered because of hatchery _______________ (insert statement) without a consideration for atrocious habitat conditions and extreme marine mortality, you're no better than a feather flicking douche.
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#934042 - 07/11/15 08:58 PM
Re: wild steelhead management zones in Puget Sound
[Re: Fear_no_fish]
|
Registered: 03/27/08
Posts: 1028
Loc: Snoqualmie WA/Cordova AK
|
Wild Steelhead need to be protected at all costs, they seem to be the most fragile stock in Puget Sound rivers, but balancing conservation with a directed fishery on hatchery plants is important too.
I thought WDFW already made up their mind that they would plant hatchery fish in rivers where the hatchery had an excellent collection facility, ie Wallace, Reiter, Tokul, NF Stilly.
Everyone has the "Not In My Backyard" mentality when offering up no hatchery zones, but realistically let's give Wild Steelhead a chance everywhere and only plant fish where they can be either harvested or collected efficiently.
Wild Gene Banks: Nisqually, Puyallup, White, Tolt, Raging, Sultan, NF/SF Sky, Pilchuck, SF Stilly, Sauk, Nooksack. But I thought that was their plan since they decided to screw Steelhead fishermen back in 2008?
Edited by Moravec (07/11/15 08:58 PM)
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
11498 Members
16 Forums
63816 Topics
645855 Posts
Max Online: 3937 @ 07/19/24 03:28 AM
|
|
|