Fisheries "Science"

[skagit510]

Negative. When so many fish are released even a blind squirrel finds a nut. How many hatchery fish have you caught with some gross deformity? Just cause a fish has made it doesn't make it on par with a wild fish. You are correct that nature builds in some "wrong turns" to give a species a chance in case some failure occurs on the home stream. Pinks and sockeye in particular are naturally prone to high degrees of stray behavior. Another major problem of hatchery fish is the fact that they are released in mass thus drawing pressure from predators which also eat wild fish as they don't check for clipped fins. Also the pressure from sport and commercial fishing beats on wild fish as well. Wild fish would be far better off without hatchery fish period, there is no honest science in the world that would debate otherwise. Now are hatcheries number one on the list of dangers? No, I would surmise that they are far down the list of perils our wild fish face. Poor management being somewhere near the top.

Spoon, the broodstocking you speak of is indeed I believe better than the use of say chambers creek fish for all winter plants. However, if one starts this practice as a very last resort to avoid extinction then you are in effect sacrificing those wild fish at the gravel in hopes that they produce more returns than that of a natural spawn. Yet it is shown in various research that the fitness of the offspring is not as good as the true born in the gravel fish. Sort of the old Shakespeare quote about being a child born of passion or one of obligation to family lineage. I personally believe any hatchery operation should be of a broodstock nature and use the genetics indigenous to the river in question. I also believe that all individual rivers need to be managed for their strengths and under a plan unique and custom fit for that system. For instance I would not want to curtail plants on the Cowlitz as it is pretty much devoid of wild fish and the dams make recovery IMHO a long shot. Possible, yes and the dam does make a unique opportunity to separate the chafe from the true seed. Yet with every curtailed fishery angling pressure is displaced to another system. The case of late is that of the OP where there are wild stocks in great peril and the angling pressure currently in place will almost certainly damage them irreparably along with other human generated factors. I think broodstocking should start sooner so that you are not sacrificing a few pairs of very few available. We need to listen to the canary in the coal mine sooner or at least check to see if its dead more frequently. But alas WDFW will keep forcasting "record" runs when they are a pittance of what was and should be. Steelhead in the Hoh are at four percent of natural and historic abundance, that fact alone should make anyone question their participation, methods, and management of that particular fishery. There should be no nets on a fishery in such a dire strait. I would concede that there should likely not be much of a sport fishery either if we are really serious about real recovery. Even if it were just a political statement in kind with the tribe. I see nowhere in the Boldt decision that entitles anyone to kill the last one. We need to take ownership of what is as sport anglers. We are not the major problem, but we are a variable in a complex and daunting problem. We need to realize and that and come to terms with that and have a real frank discussion with those in charge. If they will not listen, well my father had a saying for that when someone really screws up. He felt they should, "Be hung by their balls". I tend to agree. But hey we are now in a changing of the guard as management as Phil is gone.

[stillyfisher]

Salmon and Steelhead are amazing and resilliant animals. They have adapted to have a certain percentage of any group stray into other rivers as a survival mechanism. Consider how many times all of our local rivers in the past centuries have been devestated by volcanic eruptions and the mudflows that follow. Rivers can be wiped out, and the fish come back. Even year pinks weren't in the Snohomish until they were first observed in the '70s. They were a transplant group from another stock. (Haven't heard much about those guys lately. Anybody know what their status is?) It is estimated that about 3% of a given run does not return to its native river.
The truth about hatcheries is exactly as stated above... they have been and are used as a factory to make fish to kill. The wild fish become collateral damage amongst the more plentiful hatchery fish and recovery doesn't happen.

[stillyfisher]

The most frustrating issue in my mind in all of this is the insistance by the tribes and WDFW that habitat is the underlying cause salmonoid runs collapsing. As long as fish have been exploited commercially, they have come back in fewer and fewer numbers. I don't care what the habitat looks like, you can't kill 75% of the fish and expect to have them consistantly replace themselves. Of interest regarding the OP, as appalling as even a 50% kill rate seems to me, which is were those rivers have been subject to, is that those rivers are in much better shape than PS rivers. http://www.wdfw.wa.gov/publications/001 ... en_esu.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;. Imagine, less of the run is killed and the fish better sustain themselves. Yes, I know, even those rivers are a shadow of what they once were and should be. But don't worry, WDFW will come up with a new and lower estimate of historical populations of fish so that we all won't see what a disasterous failure they have been for so long.

[Bodofish]

Soooooo, Skagit, what you're saying is you have no supporting data to support your guess about the genetics of Rainbow trout?

Perhaps I can help you out a little. Lets start with a short quote from a little 15 year study.

“It used to be thought that coastal rainbow trout and steelhead were actually two different fish species, but we’ve known for some time that isn’t true,” said Mark Christie, an OSU postdoctoral research associate and expert in fish genetic analysis. “What’s remarkable about these findings is not just that these are the same fish species, but the extent to which they interbreed, and how important wild trout are to the health of steelhead populations.”

Now I know there is a lot to read here, maybe I can help you with the take away. In order to find the genetic marker that determines the smoltification, it was first determined that both Steelhead and RBT are genetically identical. You can enjoy reading about the methodology and supporting literature used to procure a homogeneous sampling.

http://mag.audubon.org/articles/blog/fi ... -northwest" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

http://www.fishinfo.com/fishing-informa ... e_53.shtml" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

http://www.endangeredspecieslawandpolic ... bow-trout/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

http://www.g3journal.org/content/2/9/1113.full" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

http://phys.org/news/2011-01-wild-rainb ... ealth.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

http://nativefishsociety.org/wp-content ... spring.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

http://oregonstate.edu/ua/ncs/archives/ ... opulations" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

http://www.genetics.org/content/179/3/1559.long" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[skagit510]

Yes, bodo e species is the same. That still doesn't mean there are not different races. Just like dogs and people. To say all rainbow trout are genetically identical would be grossly false and overly simple. This can be detected with genetics. So you see same species doesn't make the same fish. Acorvette and a pinto are both cars would be correct, to say they are identically the same would be incorrect. Surely you must realize there are several strains unique in many cases to their river of origin.

[Bodofish]

Yes, bodo e species is the same. That still doesn't mean there are not different races. Just like dogs and people. To say all rainbow trout are genetically identical would be grossly false and overly simple. This can be detected with genetics. So you see same species doesn't make the same fish. Acorvette and a pinto are both cars would be correct, to say they are identically the same would be incorrect. Surely you must realize there are several strains unique in many cases to their river of origin.

Really??? "different races. Just like dogs and people.". Really????

Still wrong on so many levels. Did you read or are you just stating they look different. No, I guess you didn't read any of it. I guess ignorance is bliss.

[skagit510]

Why don't you do a little research. You see if I told a six year old that's a horse. Well that's correct and good enough for a six year olds mental capacity. Yet someone who knows horses would understand there's Arabian, apaloosa,ect. You're not six are you? You seem quite condescending and sure of yourself for someone displaying a rather limited knowledge in this subject. Perhaps you could explain it to me rather than Google up some random studies that actually don't address this issue. Perhaps Google the following, "are different races of steelhead genetically distinct". That should give you plenty to read. Remember just cause your driveway is level doesn't mean the earth is flat.

[Bodofish]

Why don't you do a little research. You see if I told a six year old that's a horse. Well that's correct and good enough for a six year olds mental capacity. Yet someone who knows horses would understand there's Arabian, apaloosa,ect. You're not six are you? You seem quite condescending and sure of yourself for someone displaying a rather limited knowledge in this subject. Perhaps you could explain it to me rather than Google up some random studies that actually don't address this issue. Perhaps Google the following, "are different races of steelhead genetically distinct". That should give you plenty to read. Remember just cause your driveway is level doesn't mean the earth is flat.

Please a 6 year old? Obviously spending too much time writing and not enough reading. If you read even two of the articles you'd stop going on about man and dogs and horses and Chevrolets.

[skagit510]

I read a couple of them. So just cause a trout can have migratory offspring planter trout and wild steelhead are the same right. I just want to understand your position. You are saying a hoh winter fish and a grand ronde summer fish are the same and you see no reason to preserve the unique traits and life histories of individual races of steelhead. You think we should just plant one race say chambers ck. Wait that's what they did. I'm aware having wild steelhead of unique races is vastly troublesome to a group of people who couldn't care less about such things so long as the tribe and sports had a fresh crop of brats to floss up and bait diver up in front of a hatchery pipe. Sorry to some that's not quality fishing. If they are all the same why is there chambers ck. And skamania strains? Those are two you should be well familiar with

[McNaulty206]

I take Bodo's side. A Green Lake planter trout and a wild winter run on the Hoh trout are genetically identical trout - I dare you to find a difference! A trout is a trout is a trout is a trout. You must also understand, Skagit, that all trout rearing streams and rivers are also identical, hence the resemblance in their DNA.

[spoonman]

I take Bodo's side. A Green Lake planter trout and a wild winter run on the Hoh trout are genetically identical trout - I dare you to find a difference! A trout is a trout is a trout is a trout. You must also understand, Skagit, that all trout rearing streams and rivers are also identical, hence the resemblance in their DNA.

This is a joke right? Im not a biologist, but look no farther than the difference in spawning colors of steelhead from different systems. And about rivers, so you're telling me a glacial fed river like the hoh is the same as a river like the pilchuck? While these fish may share the majority of their DNA, there is clearly subtle differences from system to system.

[jd39]

Seems to me there is much incorrect here. The wfc didn't have their asses handed to them, more like the other way around as our greedy co managers fought to keep the status quo. Wild fish aren't gone, but soon will be if ignorance like this persists. I am not a wfc supporter, however it's deplorable we even need hatcheries. But I realize there are those out there that would just assume floss brats at a pipe somewhere with eighty two other "anglers". As far as spring the wdfw in a strong hatchery program. I wouldn't support the wdfw to manage my fish tank or now my lawn. There is zero accountability and zero enforcement and zero common sense. Your logic is flawed. More hatchery fish are not the answer, they are like dependence on foreign energy.

Wait the wfc, a small group of elitist f#%* with money used their f#%*ing lawyers and money to decide steelhead management policy for thousands of anglers and the co-managers are the greedy ones in this situation? I'm going to struggle to find anything you say credible after that bs and your support for wfc scum.
Wild fish will soon be functionally gone from many systems and hatchery fish will have had almost no impact on that. It's complete f*^%ing bs to blame hatchery fish for wild fish declines! Christ only arrogant, self serving idiots could look around at all the destruction and alterations we've done to the natural environment then go "look there, those f#%*ing" hatchery fish are doing the wilds in". F#%*ing stupid.
Hatchery fish bite skagit, if you need help with that just ask.
Where wilds are strong I'd support shutting the whole systems down to protect them, I don't agree with elitist suing their way into getting a playground of only their choosing.

[Bodofish]

I take Bodo's side. A Green Lake planter trout and a wild winter run on the Hoh trout are genetically identical trout - I dare you to find a difference! A trout is a trout is a trout is a trout. You must also understand, Skagit, that all trout rearing streams and rivers are also identical, hence the resemblance in their DNA.

This is a joke right? Im not a biologist, but look no farther than the difference in spawning colors of steelhead from different systems. And about rivers, so you're telling me a glacial fed river like the hoh is the same as a river like the pilchuck? While these fish may share the majority of their DNA, there is clearly subtle differences from system to system.

Not a joke at all. To take it one step further, an RBT is an RBT is a Steelhead is a Red Band is a Kamloops is an RBT. They all have the same DNA that is made up of pairs of genes, one dominant and one recessive. Only one gene used at a time, this is how we see physical differences in the individual fish and runs, one gene is used over the other. To make a correct analogy, it's like blue or brown eyes. Not dogs or people or Pintos or Corvettes. We are not talking different species, races or what ever. The fact is no longer open for debate, it's a proven fact that all RBT's, Steelhead, Red Bands, Kamloops are just that, RBT's and all have exactly the same DNA. Yes you can see differences in the way the different rainbows look, that's natural, it's the selections of the genes used and the old nature vs nurture, they live in different environments, they eat different things, etc.. Yes, they're different but they're genetically identical, they all have exactly the same set of genes to work with when they're created.

[skagit510]

Jd, in not a wfc supporter, in fact quite the opposite. I was merely pointing out that it didn't seem to me they were disorganized and looked v stupid. Quite the opposite. It looked to me the tribe wanted everyone to figure out how to make their fishing better and wdfw was fighting for the status quo. Also I have no trouble getting a fish on. That's not the issue here, obviously it is for you though so good luck flossing your brats at reiter.

Bodo, I agree they are the same species. But they are not genetically identical. Genetically very similar yes. Them are the facts, supported by some of the articles you posted. Even if we are splitting hairs here there is no real steelhead v angler that would agree all steelhead are the same if they had any experience, regardless the reason genetic or otherwise unless you found wild fish an troublesome for your crap fisheries and commercial agenda. I'm aware they all have the same set of genes when they are created and the expression of these genes is why they look different, this does not mean there are not different varieties and races. Why are wdfw using different stocks for different purposes then? I don't believe you are that unintelligent, I just believe you are steering and arguing a party line agenda for entertainment which I cannot participate in. I've watched you over the years bully other members of this forum in an effort to get them to lose their cool and say things they shouldn't and become banned. I will not do this, as I respect your opinion as you should others. I was not the one who became snarky first. But bodo comfortably sitting with home court advantage feels the need to push the boundaries of civil discussion. That's fine, this forum is probably one of few places you feel like the big man so lap it up and enjoy. You may now begin your smear campaign as I'm leaving the room now and won't be defending myself.

I'm done here, no need arguing with those who believe flossing is legal (bodo) and have their head firmly in the sand. Jd you would probably find I posted in this thread a very similar management philosophy as you if you would read carefully, as I'm not a wfc supporter and was only making the point that they are organized and not to be taken lightly as they are a threat. So gentlemen I leave you to it. Thank you for the spirited debate it was telling and educational. Tight lines.

Stillyfisher I apologize if my contributions to this thread were not constructive to your query. I will bow out now, but caution you to the fact fox news which some here firmly believe to the marrow is not the only station with news. Bottom line research your self and make your own opinions, and seek insight from those who's opinions are well informed and you trust. Good luck.

[eat-sleep-fish]

I do not want to argue with anyone, just interject my two cents. Bodo and Skagit are both correct. Rainbows and steelhead are genetically the same fish. Their environments and strains make them different. I am not sure how many strains of rainbows there are, I can think of six off the top of my head but I am sure there are more than that. I really hate to see you guys putting each other down, detracts from this great website.

[MarkFromSea]

Fewer nets and more hatchery fish>>>Bada Bing!
The true wild fish are gone... boost hatchery production, introduce some of the current hybrid "wild" fish genes into the mix if you want but the future of sport caught salmon and steelhead lies in hatchery fish production.

I've noticed lately at another fishing website there has been postings from WFC supporters. They had their backsides handed to them at a state hearing over that last destructive lawsuit WFC filed, destroyed Puget Sound's hatchery winter run steelhead. WFC is gunning to close all hatcheries! That would leave us with no fish. Fight WFC and their minions, it's way worse than Boldt.

Seems to me there is much incorrect here. The wfc didn't have their asses handed to them, more like the other way around as our greedy co managers fought to keep the status quo. Wild fish aren't gone, but soon will be if ignorance like this persists. I am not a wfc supporter, however it's deplorable we even need hatcheries. But I realize there are those out there that would just assume floss brats at a pipe somewhere with eighty two other "anglers". As far as spring the wdfw in a strong hatchery program. I wouldn't support the wdfw to manage my fish tank or now my lawn. There is zero accountability and zero enforcement and zero common sense. Your logic is flawed. More hatchery fish are not the answer, they are like dependence on foreign energy.

Excuse me for the delay in responding, I was out slaying tuna with Nate Treat yesterday and prepping for the trip the day before.
In my above statement, I was referring to the hearings that recently occurred with legislator Pearson, WFC did win the lawsuit because WDFW was focused on North of Falcon at the time of WFC's lawsuit and had no manpower resources to fight it in a timely manner. At the hearings after....WFC took one in the shorts.
As for the rest of it.... at least you have passion... ask yourself these questions... just be true to yourself here.. how many decades have hatcheries supported WA recreational fishers? Where would the recreational sport fisher be today without those hatcheries? What hobby would I(you) have if it wasn't for those hatcheries sustaining any of the fisheries we have today? If all of the hatcheries went away today, what hobby would you take up?.. because you certainly wouldn't be allowed to fish if that were to happen. The closure or limitation of any hatchery reduces someone's enjoyment of the hobby of fishing. I don't even f****g fish rivers let alone a winter fishery(except ice fishing) but I will do what I can to support someone else's right to do so. Wild fish gives people the warm and fuzzies... but if that's all we have... there will be no recreational fishing.
Foreign energy.... not hardly... more like bio fuel, fracking, shale oil, electric cars, solar.. ect... these are homegrown replacements for what was when there were fewer people... we have more people, more needs because of it, whether it's food or recreation, we need a strong hatchery system... PUMP EM OUT BABY! I wanna fish!

[jd39]

Skagit, from previous forum threads I think we agree on a lot of issues but in the post in this thread I quoted it appeared to me you essentially imply a hatchery fish angler/supporter = flosser, you also included something to that effect in your response to me. I know that to be false and also find it ridiculously arrogant and condescending. My "hatchery fish bite" comment was admittedly a petty attempt to reply in kind.
I support hatcheries and love catching hatchery fish and refuse to be shamed in any way for that. Lumping me and other hatchery supporters in with the dental school crowd is an attempt to do so.
Will have to take you at your word on the WFC.

MFS - well said.

[stillyfisher]

The "wild" fish on almost every river around have been breeding with hatchery plants for past 60 years plus. Especially on rivers that get plants without hatcheries to collect them. For example, the Sultan, Pilchuck, Pilchuck Creek, Canyon Creek, SF Stilly, etc... Wild fish are all mongrel fish in these systems to a certain degree. To say the a RBT is a RBT is a RBT is really an over simplification of what research has shown. Just as was pointed out above, with people, you have eye color, skin color, body size, etc... that are all genetically determined unique characters within a species type. Red Band, Kamloops etc... are all unique subspecies of RBT that have unique characteristics that are determined by their DNA. If DNA was exactly the same in every fish, they would all look and behave almost exactly the same. DNA is not the same even fish to fish within the same species in a given river... that is why some fish are bigger, or stay in the salt an extra year, or don't ever go to the ocean and spend their whole lives in the river as a trout. Every person has unique DNA. That is why they can track down people in the crime lab by DNA. Certain rivers as pointed out above have certain dominant or rececive genes that are more prevelent. That makes that strain of fish unique. This is why chambers creek fish come back in bunches early. This is why Skagit fish come back in the late winter and spring. Are all these fish RBT? The answer is yes... but, geographic isolation developes unique characteristics within the species. Again, just like people. Adaptation with geographic isolation gives us dark skinned people in Africa, pale skinned light eyed people in northern Europe, etc... and yet they are all people and at the same time unique. BTW, If we really want fish to catch, the state needs to stop letting the majority of the fish get killed every year and maybe we would get somewhere.

[Bodofish]

Regardless, All rainbow trout have Identical DNA, it's a fact. It doesn't matter what you want to call them, doesn't matter if you get a warm fuzzy saying you don't believe it or that you can just see the genetic difference by looking at them (well you can't but that's another debate). It's a fact, pure and simple, and there is no arguing it so everyone might as well get used to it, it's just the way it is.
The differences in appearance were already explained, genes. There are two sets for every trait. Just like blue eyes and brown eyes. Still no genetic difference. They all pick and choose from the same set of genes. To smolt or not is really the 64k question.

[steelseeker]

The "wild" fish on almost every river around have been breeding with hatchery plants for past 60 years plus. Especially on rivers that get plants without hatcheries to collect them. For example, the Sultan, Pilchuck, Pilchuck Creek, Canyon Creek, SF Stilly, etc... Wild fish are all mongrel fish in these systems to a certain degree. To say the a RBT is a RBT is a RBT is really an over simplification of what research has shown. Just as was pointed out above, with people, you have eye color, skin color, body size, etc... that are all genetically determined unique characters within a species type. Red Band, Kamloops etc... are all unique subspecies of RBT that have unique characteristics that are determined by their DNA. If DNA was exactly the same in every fish, they would all look and behave almost exactly the same. DNA is not the same even fish to fish within the same species in a given river... that is why some fish are bigger, or stay in the salt an extra year, or don't ever go to the ocean and spend their whole lives in the river as a trout. Every person has unique DNA. That is why they can track down people in the crime lab by DNA. Certain rivers as pointed out above have certain dominant or rececive genes that are more prevelent. That makes that strain of fish unique. This is why chambers creek fish come back in bunches early. This is why Skagit fish come back in the late winter and spring. Are all these fish RBT? The answer is yes... but, geographic isolation developes unique characteristics within the species. Again, just like people. Adaptation with geographic isolation gives us dark skinned people in Africa, pale skinned light eyed people in northern Europe, etc... and yet they are all people and at the same time unique. BTW, If we really want fish to catch, the state needs to stop letting the majority of the fish get killed every year and maybe we would get somewhere.

Very well said I agree,as earlier said.