Washington Trout declares war on recreational fishing: Steelheader.net- Steelhead, Salmon and trout fishing

Seems I pushed some buttons Ramon. Was that because you did not and perhaps cannot answer the questions I raised (along with others asking them also). I think you are well enough equiped upstairs to realize that I most certainly DID ask pertinent and legitimate questions, that you wrongly have implied are accusations! ... This type of response is why I have stayed out of this debate as long as I did. Been there done that a lot the last couple years within important fishing issue debates. I don't really want to be in this thread - but I will try not to let WT off the hook with less than satisfactory public responses from it's spokesman on such an immensely important issue. I don't mean to get personal with you; and not questioning your character. We've never met, and I figure you are a concerned and caring fisherman; as most of us are. But also as with many of us, one with a possible slanted agenda. And likely one without the answers, as you have demonstated. (NOT discrediting your statement attempts; just calling it as I see it, and responding with pertinent questions and comments).

There are enough things to address in your above response to me that I will copy and paste some of them here. By using [these type square parenthesis] I will express my reply comments and further questions about your post. I think it will display in no uncertain terms what is a question and what is a comment ... and what is an accusation vs a factored suspicion. ~~~

Ramon VB:

"So this brings me to you RT. Where will the money come from? You seem to be implying that I'm trying to mislead people."

["seem"? No - not an implication. That sentence of yours there is a better example of an accusation; dampered by the word "seem". ... Mine was a pertinent question. Money has gotten more scarse for state programs in this economic decline, and underfunded hatcheries are slated for further cuts as it is; and now WT wants immediate expensive change in numerous hatcheries or they will sue in attempt to abolish them. Yet you purport WT's real agenda is to get WDFW within compliances rather than attempt to shut them down; but I'm sure you know full well WDFW does not have the funding for immediate full compliance. That makes them a great timely target for pursuing hatchery axing - as is happening here in Oregon for budget paring purposes and also bringing some hatcheries into better compliance with new era standards as the time/money factor will allow. Despite your legitimate stance that you have given them 2 years to come up with the appropriate plans and written timetable for changes, this is not the time to hang them helplessly over a bridge, along with NW Washington sport anglers. We all know NW hatcheries need improved policies and infra-structure. Slow proper changes in that direction are in that process, albeit slowly, in the form of brood stock programs to better keep gentics indigenis to specific watersheds intact by slowly shifting to brood brat smolt releases. They have also already lowered the number of hatchery smolt releases region wide so there is less competition for food with juvenile native fish. And efforts have also been directed at better disease control. But it all takes money! [I]So I will ask again[/B] - IF WT's main agenda is to bring the hatcheries into appropriate compliance rather than hatchery abolition, did you look into the funding aspects that are at the foundation of any effective reform? And how did you factor that situation into your seeming ongoing agenda, likely knowing the money isn't there for the kinds of changes sought?].

"I have admitted that WT puts fish before fishers and that we are not a sportfishing-advocacy organization. These facilites are harming listed fish, and they are violating the law. You may be satisfied with that circumstance but WT is not. It is our position that this situation must end."

[Am I satisfied with the status quo? No. But I am for the kinds of changes to regional hatchery programs, which I wrote in bold lettering in the above parenthesis, that are slowly being shifted to within funding constraints - much more so than cutting out important hatcheries altogether. ... And you keep claiming that hatcheries are harming native fish. How much are they harming native fish runs? Do they harm them anywhere near the amount that such as habitiat degredation and power users do? I don't think so! In light of these better regional procedures aluded to, why do you still contend such significant hatchery harm to native runs? And what adjusted science to the above factors are you using as a basis for that claim? You MUST be able to defend that all important claim unequivocally to justify such a radical endeavor by WT.]

"Talk about inuendo. You don't ask questions; you make accusations."

[That statement has been demonstrated to be unfounded. I have raised pertinent questions, gone unanswered, leading to suspicion of your intregal agenda; based on the factors as I see them. Big difference. I'm sorry that you misunderstood that, and took offense to it. I can only put things into words the best I can; but I don't always come across the way I intend to - just as most people come up a little short in varying degrees of communication. Please accept my appology for contributing to any misunderstanding of what I have tried to convey.]

"As I explained above, WT is simultaneously working on hatchery, harvest, and habitat issues daily. We are committed to a comprehensive, all-Hs approach to salmon recovery, no matter who's ox it gores (even anglers'). I imagine you don't mind us using the law to get action as long as we're going after foresters or developers or energy companies or commercial fishers. But don't take one single fish out of your ice-box, is that it?"

[No. That's not it. As stated above I am in agreement with the shift to lesser planting of hatchery smolts to reduce the impact on juvenile native survival rates. Same with the slow shift to indigenis brood stock hatchery policy to help protect the gentics of specific watersheds, thus removing suspected impacts on 'true native fish' - if there are any of them still there. Fish biology science has been unable to determine for certain that they really exist anymore; and in fact, state that much straying of 'native' fish occurs with spawning in other rivers - said to be nature's way of strengthening genetics with diversification. So why would native genetics used from one river's hatchery harm 'native' fish in other rivers if 'native' fish straying doesn't? ... I'm not being concerned with fish in my ice-box, as you've accused. Not at all! I'm concerned with recreational fishing opportunity; and I often practice C&R fishing. Always on unclipped nates. ... However, I am glad to hear of WT's efforts against the list of 'native' fish enemies in your above and below paragraphs. As I said before - kudos to WT in that regard. And you have sport fisher's and my sincere appreciation for those efforts. But you did not answer a pertinent question regarding those stated credentials/efforts. So, I ask again; is WT putting in as much man-hour efforts and money funding in aggresively going after each of those other possibly harsher 'native' fish enemies that you are putting into this crusade targeted at the WDFW hatcheries? If not, why not? Without an honest, provable, and defendable answer to that question, you certainly must see why suspicion of ulterior agenda motives by WT arises! I hope the suspicion is unfounded, and think it may be. But that would not change my position against your possible precident setting lawsuit that could wind up in the short and long term taking away as much or more recreational fishing opportunity than the infamous Judge Boldt Fed. Ct. ruling did so long ago - a negative impact that will very likely last beyond our lifetimes.]

"It's easy and cheap to make conjectural accusations. For the last time; we ARE NOT a fishing group of any kind. We get under the skin of flyfishers as often as we get under yours. Hell, we get under the skin of other enviromental organizations when we go after harvest issues (and hatchery issues by the way). I could play that game too. I could talk about how fishing magazine columnists don't care about the resource OR anglers; they just want to inflame and manipulate them to keep readership up, so advertisers can continue to sell them tackle or boats or worms or whatever, so the columnist and the editor and the advertisers can afford to go on trips to Alaska together and get some solitude in a place where the fishing hasn't been hosed. (I'm not making that accusation; Heaven forbid! But see how easy it is, and I don't even have to know if it's true before I put it on the internet, do I RT?) I don't play that game because I actually believe my own argument so I'm satisfied to make it."

[Ah, you just did, Ramon. Inaccurate low blow! And furthermore, within your statement above is some very revealing words - "get some solitude in a place where the fishing hasn't been hosed". Therein lies much of our suspicion of actual agenda motives! Correctable suspicion - not accusation.]

"And I'll ask again: Can you offer ANY historic, scientific, or even word-of-mouth evidence that WDFW's 100-odd hatcheries have made fishing better in Washington, or even kept it from getting worse?"

[Yes Ramon. Read this and the like threads on the other two NW fishing websites to get a big load of that! I don't agree with all of it though. As far as the latest state-of-the-art fish bio-science (which includes an alarming amount of guesswork), you ask me to defend 100 years of hatchery practice. No, I can't offer that to you. But in light of the above stated changes, that will increase the health of 'native' and hatchery fish runs WHEN the money is there to do so, I don't need to offer up historic science. Circumstances are much different now. In fact, I don't believe the hatchery porgrams have 'done it right' from the beginning - so we don't disagree on that point. We disagree about what to do about the current hatchery situation in the modern era political, financial, and cultural climate. That's it.]

"From this point on, I'll let it stand for and defend itself."

[I hope you don't cop out of this very important debate about the future of NW salmon and steelhead fishing, at this stage. It's your designated role within WT, that you accepted. With further discourse, we may just get to a better answer for the majority of all involved.]

RT

--------------------
Steve Hanson
www.reeltruthfishing.com
(see 'RT's Insider Page there - occasionally)

NOTE: We've sold out of our inventory of books. Watch for the 2nd edition, sometime this year. Thanks! ... btw, there are still a few of the books left at the Guide Shop (Tillamook) and Bob's Outdoor (Longview).

Hello,

I have watched this thread for a little bit and have decided to weigh in with a couple points. I don't claim to have solutions, only hoping that we can bridge some gaps in the discussion.

First, let me thank Ramon for taking the time to express the views of WA Trout. Although I don't agree with all of WA Trouts points, after looking over the website, I do believe that they do care about wild fish and that they are trying to help salmonids on all H fronts. I think Ramon has made the WA Trout point clear, they are a wild fish conservation and advocacy group that they seek to be a voice for fish, not industry or fishermen.

Secondly, I see that some of the discussion is focused on a range of scientific fields, ranging from ecology to statistics. That is particularly interesting to myself, I have published research on salmonids over the last 15 years. In regard to this point, I saw the posts by Boater and thought that was a very positive way to respond (by posting science to refute some of Ramon's claims about hatcheries). In addition, I liked the way that RT asked good questions, and Ramon responded and RT thoughtfully understood. Those are all positives, not to mention many of the other positive posts, by Aunty, H20 and others. Sorry if I forgot to list you as the contributors are exceeding my memory banks.

On the other hand, I find Goose's points rather sophomoric because he does not provide any solutions, but asks for them, ask only what you are prepared to give yourself a wise man once said.

I think your argumentative style could be useful, if you provided solutions and risked face. You claim that you don't want to mess with the natural ecosystem, well putting hatcheries in place and leaving them there is a fairly significant alteration to the ecosystem, no?

Also, you want CI's in regard to catch and release literature. I wonder if you are familiar with the literature, which, in total encompasses about 20-40 published papers, depending on the species. They all come to similar conclusions, flies and lures angling produces less mortality than bait angling. Most mortality rates run from 4/5 % up to 15%, with some studies reaching into the 20's when certain species are fresh from the marine environment. I would suggest that you please read through Mr. Bob Hooten's latest catch and release meta-paper as it is the most thorough compilation to date. In general the research concludes that bait has a higher mortality rate associated with its use when compared to lures or flies. In addition, salmon and steelhead that have freshly entered the river system are more susceptible to angling mortality, with any kind of fishing rig, simply because the fish have not had ample time to physiologically transfer from salt to the freshwater environment.

Whew, now on to your topic of ecology. I must admit, your comments and questions could be useful, but the tone leaves much to be desired in the professional realm. Currently, there is a research being conducted by Dr. David Welsh, a canadian marine ecologist, who has done some marvelous research on the marine life stage of salmonids, in particular, juvenile salmonids. His research indicates that the massive planting of hatchery juvenile fish signficantly reduces the survival of wild juvenile salmonids during poor ocean years. Simply put, you should know this, the ocean has a carrying capacity and the more fish you put in the more likely you are to exceed that capacity. During good ocean years, like the last couple, both hatchery and wild fish seem to survive equally well. So that means that during our good ocean years there isn't much problem, that we know of yet at least, in the massive outplants of hatchery smolts, but that during those lean ocean years, like in the late 80's and most of the 90's. Ecologically, the hatchery fish are consuming too much ecological capital and the worst part is that most of the marine nutrients they pick up are never delivered to the watershed. In addition, metabolic and physiologic research on hatchery and wild juvenile salmonids indicates that hatchery fish do not metabolize food as efficiently as wild fish in the marine environment, they grow slower, have lower fat stores, and reduced fitness levels. Ecologically speakinig, those juvenile fish are a drain on the marine environment. I would suggest you look at some of his work , even if you don't agree with him, simply to examine his interesting points. On the other hand, some research papers have not found hatchery fish to negatively affect wild fish survival in the ocean, however, the authors are careful to note that their studies were conducted during positive ocean years and that their ability to analyze ocean survival is limited. Thus, I list Mr. Welsh because his work is the most current and thorough, in addition, he is currently working on gathering funding to try and count every fish in the ocean- big project- but maybe possible with today's technology- those results will be interesting.

Boy, can't stop now. Goose, the predator-prey relationship scheme you give is highly simplified, more likened to high school biology with the generalizations. Significant research on the fluctuations in marine productivity are published. H20 is on track with his hypothesis, if the food source crashes, so do the predators. In fact, there is a wonderful piece of research conducted on Bald Eagle populations in Flathead Lake that directly relates to your conclusions. Prior to 1981, a small tributary to Flathead Lake averaged in excess of 100,000 spawning kokanee salmon each year. It attracted an average of 640 eagles annually, which was the densest eagle concentration south of Canada. But in the late 1970's, an exotic species of freshwater shrimp was introduced to the lake and the shrimp decimated the zooplankton population that was the staple food source of the kokanee salmon. By 1987 the kokanee population crashed, and so did the eagle population. In 1989 there were less than 1,500 kokanee spawning in the tributary and the eagles reached a low of just 25 birds. When food sources plummet, the response of the ecosystem is to crash, and the re-equilibtrate at a lower level of productivity. Now the productivity might not provide harvest opportunities or many angling opportunities (we don't have data, so we simply don't know what will happen) but the ecological balance (without hatchery fish) would be more naturally sustainable. The farther we go down the track with hatchery fish, the farther we get from the sustainable natural ecosystem.

Now, I also realized that many people wanted some science and Boater was cool enough to give us some. Mart Gross, mentioned by Ramon, at the U. of Toronto in Canada is probably the foremost expert on artificial propogation of fish in the world. His research is also lucid, one- when humans select mates for fish in hatcheries as opposed to the fish selecting their own mates (god knows we all don't want to be set up with someone, what about the fish- I think the science says let them choose their own), ranging from guppies to salmonids, offspring survival is reduced 25-50%. In addition, when hatchery fish breed with native fish, several symptoms are noticed, reduced fecundity, erratic growth rates, intermediate fitness levels, etc. The entire Pacific Rim, not just Washington, but Japan, Russia, China, Canada, and the US are currently contemplating how to deal with our hatchery "problem" and our aqua culture problem. So this issue goes far beyond the common sportsmen, and rightfully so, as our hatchery fish influence the survival of native and hatchery salmonids from other countries- so it is already an international issue. The two choices they list as solutions are clear, either use broodstock or zoneation of hatcheries. The frontrunner right now is zoneation, makes sense in light of work by scientists, most recently Mark Chilcote, that indicate broodstocked salmonids survive at lower rates than if the fish were left to spawn in the wild. Mark Chilcote worked extensively on the Kalama steelhead hatchery project as a scientist, and after years of supporting hatcheries, now in light of the results of his 20+ years of research, he thinks hatcheries are deleteriously affecting survival of wild steelhead. In addition, the majority of research indicates that when hatchery fish spawn in the wild with native salmonids, their offspring show poor survival rates both from egg to fry, fry to smolt, and smolt to adult. The ecological issue is simple, the offspring of hatchery and wild crosses, if they survive, consume a portion of the carrying capacity of the freshwater ecosystem that could be used by wild fish.

And again, here is a list of papers that focus on the implications of hatchery fish in our ecosystems,

1. Introduction of hatchery fish can result in a number of unintended and undesireable consequences, greater competition for food sources for wild fish, increased mate competition, and habitat competition, all of which force wild fish to expend precious energy stores that in turn, affect the ability of both juvenile and adult fish to survive to and past spawning (Lichatowich and McIntyre 1987; White et al. 1995; Nickerson et al. 1986).

2. Studies also indicate that the carrying capacity of the stream during smolt out migration is limited and surpassed once massive hatchery outplants of smolts are made, in turn, this outplanting has indirect affects, the reduced survival of juvenile wild fish- this is density dependent decrease in survival and growth in freshwater (Ricker 1981; Peterman 1987; Ishida et al. 1993; Steward and Bjornn 1990).

3. Once in the ocean, there is another density dependent decrease in survival and growth, this is magnified during poor ocean years when massive hatchery outplanting reduces the survival of wild smolts up to 50%- that is a large factor (Welsh 1999; Peterman 1978)

4. Alteraction of behavior of wild juvenile fish, when massive hatchery outplants are made into the river system, this has been found to stimulate early out migration of wild juvenile salmonids (Hillman and Mullen 1989), which leads to smaller fish entering the ocean, that are in turn less fit because they left the stream early, and subsequently they survive at poorer rates in the ocean than they would have if they didn't leave early (Holtby et al. 1990).

5. Other adverse affects have also been found, including transmission of disease from hatchery to wild populations, alterations of wild fish behavior, and increased predation on wild fish (Marnell 1986; Steward and Bjornn 1990)

6. In addition there are the genetic issues, introduction of hatchery stocks can eliminate unique genomes in local stocks that result in loss of genetic variability between populations and depressed fitness where introgression occurs. Low rates of natural straying are natural and maybe beneficial, but these rates become artificially elevated through hatchery propogation (Hindar et al. 1991; Waples 1991; Bams 1976; Withler 1982; Taylor 1997).

7. Other factors, also include effluent from hatcheries contain artificially high concentrations of nutrients, disinfectant chemicals, can carry disease via the water source, weir structures impede wild fish migration, (White et al. 1995).

8. And I think this is the most misunderstood part of the whole concept. Hatchery supplementation has sociological repurcussions as well. Hatchery supplementation increases mixed stock ocean harvest pressure, terminal fisheries, and increases sport fishing pressure on wild fish traveling through hatchery supplemented waters . The long history of hatchery programs has instilled a public perception that habitat losses can be mitigated through artifical propogation, this simply isn't the case, in addition, people come to believe that the maintenance of wild populations is dependent upon hatchery supplementation- again, all the research indicates otherwise (Hillborn 1992; White et al. 1992; Lichatowich 2000).

When we have hatcheries, fishing pressure increases, both sport and commercial, once the hatcheries are gone, sportsmen are not going to continue fishing for wild fish if they can't keep fish, if angling opportunities are reduced because wild fish populations are struggling, and if angling success decreases- we are accustomed to catching fish and if hatcheries do disappear- the wild fish will not pay with overharvest- the reduced number of fish won't support that economic endeavor. SImply put, once the hatchery fish go, so will a large chunk of the anglers, and that is fine with me.

9. The majority of current scientific literature on hatcheries, recommends both elimination and extreme modification (Lichatowich and McIntyre 1987; Waples 1991; Hilborn 1992; Meffe 1992; Bevan et al. 1994; White et al. 1995).

10. Hatcheries have also brought in exotic species which have taken a deleterious toll on wild fishes (Baltz and Moyle 1993).

11. Risk of wild population exteinction for a chinook salmon population is greater with hatchery supplementation than without (Currens and Busack 1995).

12. The use of artifical propogation to conserve listed species is purely experimental and highly risky given the historical effects of hatcheries on reducing biological diversity of salmonids (Bottom 1997)

In closing, I needed to change the post, being new I did two posts and then deleted part of my original post on accident. I think the majority of the scientific literature is clear, hatcheries are good for sport and commercial fisherman but bad for wild fish. The artificial propogation summits being held by all countries around the Pacific Rim, as mentioned previously, are moving towards zonation of hatchery fish. That implies that rivers, like the Cowlitz, would probably always have their hatchery, but streams without significant barriers to upstream migration, or streams outside of major urban sprawl are going to eventually lose their hatcheries. With our budget problems, we are reliant upon governmental monies to run hatcheris, and eventually it will not be economically feasible to continue artifical propogation (especially considering that is costs between 40 - 2000$ to make each hatchery fish- 2000$ is for ESA listed sockeye in Idaho). At some point the government will pull the rug on everyone, sport anglers and commercial anglers.

One last repsonse to Dan S. Dan, good post. We do know alot about salmonids, but remember the paper referred to is a State paper- and has economic ramifications so the paper is not entirely correct- at least according to several research papers- in addition, the science of genetics is growing quickly, but up to now we don't have a genome for any salmonid so we are not able to detect genetic variation across all genetic scales, from the coarse species scale down to the finely tuned locally adapted stock. We are moving quickly, but the genetic projects are expensive and difficult, just think that we only now have mapped the human genome- and I don't think salmon are that high on the list- although there are a couple scientists trying to map a sockeye genome.

And for Goose and the nutrients. I am glad Goose realizes nutrients are important, but they are only one part of the puzzle, and the majority of hatchery fish are not providing nutrients to our watersheds. When wild fish spawn, they provide eggs, sperm, clean gravels, etc. When we do manage to dump hatchery carcasses in the rivers, they are always dumped near a bridge, easy human access, and the fish are often without their innards which are the most nutritious part. IN addition, salmon carcasses in the wild are deposited near their spawning area, in turn some nutrients travel down into the interstitial spaces of the gravel providing a food source for the juvenile when they emerge months later, and other parts of the carcass may wash downstream. THe close proximity of salmon carcass to egg deposition at the site scale is higly important (Bisson 1997) and mass dumping of hatchery carcasses into areas that may or may not be spawning grounds has not been proven to be benefical to salmonids- I agree it provides nutrients- but we don't have data from hatchery dumps to indicate the fish use the nutrients- we do have data for wild carcasses.

I hope this helps.

Waldo

[ 07-16-2002, 11:08 AM: Message edited by: waldo ]