Bush's new Washington salmon recovery plan....

D

Dmanmastertracker

Guest
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/politics/2002762590_salmon26m.html

Great, now he's a salmon expert. In an age where "pure" strains of anything (people for one, any animals, plants, etc..) are virtually non-existant, GW's new Washington salmon plan calls for gradually eliminating hatchery salmon in favor of cutting harvests to "bring back" wild salmon. How many of our salmon run's have had no influence from hatchery fish over the last 50 years, not many. In many cases, hatchery fish have re-populated areas with self-sustaining runs that either didn't exist before, or helped re-establish almost extinct native runs. Again, robbing Peter to pay Paul by dodging the other issue of dams in the Columbia basin. Three of these dams were deemed non-essential after years of studies, but that fell on deaf ears. So now we all get to pack our rods and reels away and our multi-billion dollar sport and commercial salmon fishing economy will disappear. It would take eons to do what he is proposing. It would take closing fishing completely for everyone (including the Makahs take of 20k fish) for at least 20 years at a minimum to bring wild fish back in to fishable levels.
 
If true, this will suck. Just when the runs have begun to make a good turn. The rivers may be a little crowded during the salmon runs of the last 5 or 6 years but at least the numbers of fish were there to catch. I don't know about you but i'd rather have more hatchery salmon vs. less wild salmon.
 
Totally agree with you. Hatcheries have been around since the late 1800's and I'm sure have already spread different genetics through the "wild" salmon here. We can't go back in time and reverse that, I think this would be a real bad move and would lead to a lot more poaching. I really think this is politically motivated and instead of taking on the obstructed habitat issue in the Columbia basin, the Administration is bowing to the Columbia basin energy giants and not making them truly share the cost burden in dollars my renovating dams, etc... Why should the Puget Sound fisheries be taken away because of what is not being addressed in the Columbia basin??
 
Ok,
Here I go...
I have in recent years shifted from a "HardHeaded RightWinger" to a more open minded freethinking moderate.
In layman's terms...THIS PISSES ME OFF!
I have always leaned right as far as politics go in an effort to defend my trophy hunting passion.
This move by the administration is simply a cost cutting measure to free up the budget for Bush's war plans.
Only one thing rivals my passion for big game trophy hunting, and that is trophy salmon and steelhead fishing in the Pacific Northwest.
The majority of the fish that I catch are hatchery raised fish.
I have raised my son on these rivers and watched him grow into a mighty fisherman that humbles grown men, words alone cannot describe my pride and passion when it comes to the time spent with my son on these great rivers.
Without a doubt, some of the best days of my life.
If this move passes, I hate to say it , but I may be voting Democrat for the first time in my life.
http://www.monstermuleys.info/dcforum/DCForumID13/3177.html
HPIM1844.jpg

HPIM1994.jpg

HPIM1915.jpg

HPIM1946.jpg

HPIM1934.jpg

HPIM1925.jpg

HPIM1906.jpg

HPIM1916.jpg

^ (above)just a few of my MANY fish caught this past season with my son.
Bush might lose me with this move!
 
Nice slabs! I just wish Bush would educate himself better on how to manage our resources in the West. His timber logic is flawed, fossil fuel logic flawed, now salmon. What he did when he came in to office is what a lot of president's do and that's hire a bunch of yes men to his agenda's. What does that have to do with fish passage around the dams and keeping thriving hatcheries to supplement wild fish?
 
-I proofread after posting. his "other" agenda's -as you mentioned, money for the war...
 
Smells like another freaking "judge bolt" screw up!!. Another non-Washington politician making BAD decisions and policy for our state. I am a libertarian and moving farther away from Bush.
 
You guys need to see the $100 million water slide for a fish ladder they put in at Rocky Reach Dam! This is the current administration dealing with the onslaught of lawsuits and measures brought on by eco-environmental groups. It's the PC way of our government to appease these people that think only "wild" salmon should be in rivers and oceans. This whole mess was brought on way before the Bush administration took office. This very thing is why Bush wanted to delist the salmon and steelhead from the endangered species act.

-Lowedog
 
They will wind up cutting harvest numbers for sport and commercial, but wont do a g-damn thing about tribal fishing!
watermark.php

yotewalk.gif


Eric
 
Good grief . . . whose' going to start in with the, "we won the war speech?" - the sky is not falling; there will be fish as long as there are ndns catching fish. Keep bashing the Indians, and keep trying to eliminate their catch and none of you will have salmon. Have you not figured that out yet? If not for the PNW ndn tribes the salmon would already be gone.

Why don't you guys work together with the tribes on this. Go talk to the fisheries programs, go get involved with them, but above all, stop fighting over the fish, stop blaming the overharvest on the tribes (most of you guys dont even understand the harvest system - one of the 4h's) in the end if you keep fighting and talking ill of ndn people we all will lose, especially those that just want to take and not give back.


"Roadless areas, in general, represent some of the best fish and wildlife habitat on public lands. The bad news is that there is nothing positive about a road where fish and wildlife habitat are concerned -- absolutely nothing." (B&C Professor, Jack Ward Thomas, Fair Chase, Fall 2005, p.10).
 
LAST EDITED ON Jan-28-06 AT 09:10AM (MST)[p]I'm glad to see restrictions put on the commercial harvest, like they implemented this year in California.
If they do away with hatcheries, maybe they shoul do away with fishing licenses too.
HH
 
by the way HH - those are some great fish, and your son is one lucky young-man. I remember those days when I was his age, or a bit younger. I'm glad to see there are fish for him to catch. Some of my most memorable moments were chasing after salmon and steelhead along the banks of a few NE Oregon streams, and the open water of the puget sound. I spent 10 years working for the Yakama Nation and I would put all my chips in their basket before I'd put one in the state's. The Columbia River tibes, while not perfect, have a well designed plan for fish recovory that does not destroy the economic system's of the PNW. On the other hand the feds and the states, are bound and deturmined to wipe the salmon of the face of the earth.

In a final note, if we fail to address the destruction of the uplands, and the speed at which our climate is changeing you will at least have to move north to find chinook like the ones you and your sone have caught, and at worst, they will all be gone!



"Roadless areas, in general, represent some of the best fish and wildlife habitat on public lands. The bad news is that there is nothing positive about a road where fish and wildlife habitat are concerned -- absolutely nothing." (B&C Professor, Jack Ward Thomas, Fair Chase, Fall 2005, p.10).
 
Nice post Tony, Mark, I work a little with the ESA listing of salmon as you know. Under today's listing practices for wild fish they have to be listed seperate from the hatchery fish and therefore must be listed. Improvement in passage on one Dam on the Columbia is miniscule improvement when you have fish going all the way up the Snake and to Canada through the Columbia. The bottom line here is taking away the hatchery fish is not going to help anything in my opinion. Like Tony says, tribal hatchery supplement's have helped keep fishing going for everyone. That being said, I'd like to see the Makah take reduced for Winter Chinook in the Strait, last years' harvest was much higher than forecasted and was well over 50% of the total sport 50/ tribal 50 percent total. I know in the Eastern strait the Chinook quota was 3,500 fish and we had a tough time hitting that mark after the Makah fishery, I know I fished it and it was dismal fishing. Just a curiosity question, who here feel it is necessary to gradually eliminate hatchery fish in favor of "wild fish", reducing seasons for years to come?
 
I have a question for HunterHarry. I have been followed your fishing adventures ever since I started hanging out around here. Quite impressive I might add. I share your love of salmon and steelhead. More so as a steelhead fisherman myself. My question to you is, can you tell the difference in the way a hatchery fish fights and the way a wild fish fights?

My personal experience is that a wild fish is superior in strength and stamina to a hatchery fish. I know there are a lot of variables such as how long a fish has been in the river and how far up river, etc.

I'm not at all against hatcheries. In todays world, although not ideal, they are pretty much a necessity.

Have you ever fished the Mattole for steelhead? All wild fish. Those fish will tear you a new ahole! If you haven't, but get the chance, bring your "A" game with a couple extra spools of fresh line. It's not a very big river(too small for drift boats), thank goodness, or you might not ever land anything over about 12lbs. One day a few years ago I landed 3 and the smallest was 16lbs. The largest was 19.5. Like you I am still looking for that 20+. The Mattole is now all catch and release by the way.

So much rain here the last couple months, with more comming, this year has been a "blow out" so far.

Steve
 
I'm not blaming the tribes for over-harvest. I am just saying that if restricions are implemented, they need to be across the board and not exclusive of one group or the other. I do know that since the tribes have planted chum smolt into a lot of the smaller local streams, (i.e. Kennedy Creek, Little Skookum, Nisqually, parts of Hood Canal etc) the chinook, coho, and steelhead populations have all but dissapeared. To me, that is p!ss poor management for the sole benefit of the tribes.
watermark.php

yotewalk.gif


Eric
 
LAST EDITED ON Jan-28-06 AT 09:24PM (MST)[p]The tribes do limit havest. Last year there were some errors in projected returns that allowed some over harvest in the Puget Sound. The Columbia River Tribes and Puget Sound Tribes both strictly regulate harvest. Runs are harvested based on projected and later, quantifiable fish counts at Bonneville for the Columbia River runs. Some special permits are issued at times when commercial harvest is restricted or not allowed on some runs. If you want more information about harvest procedures, you can contact the Columbia River Intertribal Fish Commission (http://www.critfc.org/) or the Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission (http://www.nwifc.wa.gov/). Both have very well qualified harvest managers and extremely sophisticated harvest management programs that include limits based on returning adults, and consultation between tribal, state and federal fisheries biologist. Harvest is managed on a daily basis and when targets are reached the fishing during a particular run is stopped.

Moreover, non tribal commercial fishermen and sport anglers get to harvest their quotas well before the tribal fishermen. This is one reason that you don't see the non tribal commercial fisherman, they harvest most of their catch at the mouth of the Columbia and in the ocean, well before the fish enter the river channels. In one way it's easier to control catch and bycatch when the fish are taken from the river as harvest can be controlled and specific fish targeted with minimal bycatch. I think most would much prefer you get your facts straight before you continue to make false assertions about commercial salmon harvest in the PNW. You should not continue to espouse your "beliefs" when they are mostly false and off based.

I'm not saying you don't see tribal fishermen from time to time. I am saying that there are limits and plans that protect the runs from "over harvest," by both tribal and non tribal fishing. For you to assert that the tribes are not limited or that they do not modify their harvest based on real fish counts is just completely off based.


"Roadless areas, in general, represent some of the best fish and wildlife habitat on public lands. The bad news is that there is nothing positive about a road where fish and wildlife habitat are concerned -- absolutely nothing." (B&C Professor, Jack Ward Thomas, Fair Chase, Fall 2005, p.10).
 
Geez guys, what about the loss of hatchery fish? That was the question here, who thinks that will help us? Since salmon run in 4-5 year cycles and the fact is that most "wild" runs of salmon have been integrated with hatchery fish, does it really make sense for us to start moving away from hatchery production and will we ever have sustainable runs of "wild" fish to fish if we do?
 
Save the hatcheries! First of all I am not a racist I am a fisherman. I agree the tribes have done some good and some poor fisheries management, and so have the states. But to say the only reason we still have fish is beacause of the tribes is well, wrong!

Moreover, non tribal commercial fishermen and sport anglers get to harvest their quotas well before the tribal fishermen. This is one reason that you don't see the non tribal commercial fisherman, they harvest most of their catch at the mouth of the Columbia and in the ocean, well before the fish enter the river channels. In one way it's easier to control catch and bycatch when the fish are taken from the river as harvest can be controlled and specific fish targeted with minimal bycatch. I think most would much prefer you get your facts straight before you continue to make false assertions about commercial salmon harvest in the PNW. You should not continue to espouse your "beliefs" when they are mostly false and off based.

TFinalshot, If the statement you made is true what are the tribal gillnets stretched across the rivers for. Almost every river on the OP has a tribal netting schedule. They gillnet the rivers and the oceans. How do they controll the by catch with a gillnet, when salmon and native steelhead are both in the river at the same time?

Also you mentioned a small problem or two last year. You call an overharvest of 18,000 fish and a 33% shaker mortality rate on ocean troll caught fish a slight problem. Who paid for that slight problem? Not the tribes, It was the sporties who took it in the shorts, with shorter seasons and harvest allotments.

You my friend should heed your own advise and not expouse "beliefs" when they are mostly false and biased. I had to throw biased in there as it seems your 10 years of working with the, in your words "Yakamas" has got in the way of your good sense. Fire away, Ironhead
 
If you stop and think for a minute about population growth and economic development 20 years ago compared to today! And today compared to 20 years from now. There is no. I repeat NO habitable habitat on earth or wild species animal, fish or otherwise safe from Economic Development, and the Population growth of man. IF we want to sustain these natural resources then we darn well better be willing to substitute, subsidies and replenish these delicate resources. Wild fish will never keep up. They need all the help they can get and this includes hatchery fish. Not only that but also what if we have a natural or man made disaster. How would we ever replenish the fish with out a hatchery? When the native fish are to many then we quit raising them. But not until!
Rutnbuck
 
I will give you my opinion Dman. I would like all our fish to be wild. As usual nature does it best. I worry about diseases that can be and have been a problem in hatcheries.

On the other hand, I read that in wild fish, for every 1000 eggs that hatch approx. 3-4 fish will survive to return and spawn. In hatcheries that number goes up to 3 or 4 times that. So they can be very efficient compared to wild.

I guess my final answer is:) continue with hatcheries because of their effectiveness and their boost economically but embrace as many wild populations as possible. Does that make sense? LOL

Stve
 
Your right Steve, I agree that's the best philosophy and that is what we have been doing in the PNW for the last few years and it seems to be working fairly well, we just need to stick with it and continue to improve habitat anywhere we can. I just hope this misguided legislation isn't allowed to be implemented. I know more and more people that are going to Canada and Alaska to fish and that hurts our fisheries depts., jobs and overall economy.
 
LAST EDITED ON Jan-31-06 AT 07:57AM (MST)[p]Eeelgrass, you are right on the money. I just watched a salmon fishing program the other day that explained how much better wild salmon are at repopulating the rivers as compared to strictly hatchery salmon. They just better explained the idea behind "brood stock" and it makes a whole bunch of sense to utilize wild salmon in a hatchery program because of the greater yeild. I like the way things are being run now, why change a good and "proven to work" thing? I think the whole idea behind a newer management plan is to benefit energy production for the northwest, which is mainly hydroelectric? Do they really need better profits or are they just getting as greedy as the oil companies are? I don't know about any of you but I can live with the prices I am paying for electricity especially if it means catching more salmon in the spring/summer with my rod/reel!

I'm Like HunterHarry, the only thing I love more than hunting is salmon fishing and the only thing I love more than salmon fishing is hunting!
 
I've worked in a meat market all my life and come spring and summer there is a huge demand for ocean caught salmon.
There will be a huge economic impact on commercial fishermen and on the retail end if hatcheries are fazed out, since there would have to be some huge decreases in the commercial catch to allow this plan to work.
To those guy's in the suits in DC it is just a fish.
To us avid salmon/steelie freaks it is a huge part of our lives.
HH
 
The biggest Coho I caught was a native fish, but it didn't fight as well as many hatchery fish that I have caught that were smaller. We each have our own experience there, I'm sure they're different. But economically speaking, at the very least if we are concerned about the interaction of native salmon vs. hatchery in the rivers then we should go back to more net-pen rearing in the Sound, as has been done the the past to supplement the wild fish so we're not just taking away the harvestable fish. I'm sure with the new proposed program we would not be harvesting native salmon for many years and even then it would be a very small amount after 15-20 years...
 
Dman, or anybody else for that matter, care to give us your opinion on salmon farming? I was greatly in favor of it until I saw a show pointing out some of the dangers. One thing that really got my attention was the fact that Atlantic salmon (from Scotland I believe) are being raised on the West coast.(this shocked me!) As luck would have it, some have escaped! I guess nobody knows for sure what that means. Great! Also (according to the show) pollution, disease, parasites are a problem that nobody is talking about. Comments anyone?

Steve
 
Steve, about five years ago over 100,000 Atlantic salmon escaped a salmon farm in Puget Sound. Some descendants are still found going up streams. I'm not sure who thought it was a good idea, but non-native species should not be raised here. Net pen rearing of Pacific salmon is much different and is not farming per say. The smolts are merely held in salt water pens after hatching for a few months, then released. I don't have any issue with the farming of the five Pacific salmon species on the West Coast. Actually it is helpful in reducing the demand put on the river-bound stocks.
 
As a shellfish grower, salmon rearing pens cause a lot of polutants. There is a ton of toxins that develop from fish feces and rotting feed. These toxins are moved by current and tidal action, across the bottom and wind up affecting shellfish beds, choking out native vegetation and affecting many different native critters. The added bonus is when the pen reared salmon (usually atlantic salmon) escape and head into native spawning streams and rivers. They are very agressive (much like chum) and will destroy other salmon beds and eggs. Some species of salmon will spawn and return to the salt to do it again another year. The hatchery system is working well and we need to stick with it and have fewer net pens. Hatcheries are cleaner, better on the environment and are more controllable. Raise only native species, period. (Except for those stinking chums!) Keeping hatchery fish in the systems will help releive some of the pressure put on wild fish. The idea of retaining no wild fish is a good one and seem to be working well. What some of these paper pushing city folks that make the laws do not realize is that mother nature dictates the success of a salmon run. There might be a record run one year but most of the spawn from that run might be killed off due to floods, and not nessesarily by over harvesting.
watermark.php

yotewalk.gif


Eric
 

Click-a-Pic ... Details & Bigger Photos

Member Gallery Photos and Videos!

Deer 1 trip.jpg
FC9EF405-CDFC-457B-B874-FC047AEC1962.jpeg
Good Looking Archery Buck
IMG_7079.jpg
IMG_5378.jpeg
IMG_1157 copy.jpg
FFC97820-682A-49C5-90E4-D0386485628B.jpeg
IMG_1687.jpeg
Screenshot_20211109-145445_Messages.jpg
IMG_20201006_001635_668.jpg
Trashy Hawg Buck
20220821_152736.jpg
Back
Top Bottom