Poppy's Spey Casting Forum
Register Calendar Latest Topics Chat
 
 
 


Reply
  Author   Comment   Page 3 of 5      Prev   1   2   3   4   5   Next
Poppy Cummins

Avatar / Picture

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 699
Reply with quote  #31 
Quote:
I really hope somebody can enlighten me as to what is wrong with this process?


When baby fish are raised in a tank and fed on schedule it imprints that into their brain. After they are released instead of looking for food and grabbing it when the can they lay around waiting for the hatchery worker which is not coming by. Also hatchery fish are not as attuned to predators as well as native fish as there's a lot less chance of being eaten in a hatchery tank then it a natural environment. Laying about in a concrete tank also might tend to weaken the fry/smolts as it's a proven fact that large amounts of fish packed into a tight space are more susceptible to disease. One only needs to look at fish farming to see that.



__________________
Poppy=Red Shed Spey Rod Pimp http://www.redshedflyshop.com FRSCA-Founding Member How you get the line out and fishing is personal preference so as long as it works and is easy no one should care but the caster. MSB
William Olson

Member
Registered:
Posts: 37
Reply with quote  #32 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave Green
Quote:
Originally Posted by William Olsen
Not one time, in more than 100 years of trying have hatchery fish lived up to the promised mitigation.[\QUOTE] .....countered by:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gene Larson
Brown trout came to this continent by the way of hatchery technology.  Brook trout moved from the Northeast and Midwest to the far west by the way of hatchery technology.  Rainbow trout went the other way by the same means.  A properly managed habitat may need help to get established, but once there needs no further help.  Witness Michigan's Au Sable River.  It had to be helped to recover from the logging excesses that exterminated all the fish in it.  But now it maintains itself with all three trouts mentioned above (yes, I know brooks aren't really trout).  

There are streams in the Rockies where we are told to kill non-native species, I hope that means eat them, they are good.  Would I rather have hatchery fish in a tailwater than no fish, yes!  

I think it should be illegal to stock a thriving stream with any species, raised by any means. But, I think hatcheries serve a purpose for food production and restoration after man's excesses have done their dirty work.  
Not to mention GL Steelhead(and coho,and chinook).....there are many self sustaining runs of GL Steel......just say'n. Aside from the obvious successes of moving fish from east to west and vice versa,I guess I just don't understand what the issue is with using native brood stock to enhance struggling wild populations?I fully understand and agree that "foreign" strains should never be introduced to existing wild runs,but if the eggs and milt are collected from truly wild fish in a given river,or even better,a specific natal trib,then what is the issue with stocking site specific smolts(or parr?) back into the same trib where they were collected as eggs?It would seem to me that we would simply just be giving these wild strain eggs a helping hand and exponenentially better chance of surviving to adulthood? It would seem to me that,for all intents and purposes,these offspring would be wild fish,albeit raised in an artificial environment during the most vulnerable period of their young lives?Seriously,I'm not arguing that this is the right approach nor the end all to be all,rather I really hope somebody can enlighten me as to what is wrong with this process?


Everybody knows trout have been transplanted all over the globe.  And they often provide natural reproduction.  Including the GL's.  How exactly does that have anything to do with steelhead in their native habitat, where hatcheries have been offered up and relied upon to mitigate the habitat destruction?  Hatcheries became the legal mechanism to allow for all the resource extraction and hydro out west.  That is what my quote you attached is specifically talking about.  Mitigate in both numbers of fish and the epically failed belief these hatchery fish would just spawn in the wild and create even more fish.  Your suggestion has been tried over and over with numerous tweaks...and the results stay the same-failure.  Something gets short circuited in the wiring of these artificially produced steelhead (again specifically talking about their native habitat) and they do not survive anywhere near the rates of wild and native steelhead in their native habitat.  It costs a lot of money to play the artificial game.  Money that could have, should have and soon better be spent on habitat acquisition and improvement instead of more failed culture schemes.  When you look at the geological obstacles these fish have overcome, time after time, wild fish are equipped to fill their habitats rapidly.  We refuse to get out of their way and let them do what they do.   
Ken Campbell

Avatar / Picture

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 102
Reply with quote  #33 
"Everybody knows trout have been transplanted all over the globe. And they often provide natural reproduction. Including the GL's. How exactly does that have anything to do with steelhead in their native habitat, where hatcheries have been offered up and relied upon to mitigate the habitat destruction? Hatcheries became the legal mechanism to allow for all the resource extraction and hydro out west. That is what my quote you attached is specifically talking about. Mitigate in both numbers of fish and the epically failed belief these hatchery fish would just spawn in the wild and create even more fish. Your suggestion has been tried over and over with numerous tweaks...and the results stay the same-failure. Something gets short circuited in the wiring of these artificially produced steelhead (again specifically talking about their native habitat) and they do not survive anywhere near the rates of wild and native steelhead in their native habitat. It costs a lot of money to play the artificial game. Money that could have, should have and soon better be spent on habitat acquisition and improvement instead of more failed culture schemes. When you look at the geological obstacles these fish have overcome, time after time, wild fish are equipped to fill their habitats rapidly. We refuse to get out of their way and let them do what they do. "

Spot on William.

__________________
Just because I look stupid don't mean I ain't.

Caledonian Heathen
FRSCA -Founding Member
Todd Hirano

Member
Registered:
Posts: 53
Reply with quote  #34 
William and Poppy are absolutely right about the domestication that happens when wild steelhead are used in brood stock hatchery programs.  Precious wild steelhead are havested only to be turned into ill adapted hatchery clones that studies have shown become significantly domesticated even in the first generation of being raised in hatchery captivity.  Plain and simple: Broodstock programs = harvest of wild steelhead to produce inferior hatchery steelhead, such a waste in my humble opinion.

Thanks for the civil discussion guys,

Todd

__________________
My Blog:
Dry Line Steelhead - Oregon
http://toddhirano.blogspot.com/
Poppy Cummins

Avatar / Picture

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 699
Reply with quote  #35 
NFS-picketing-website-04-960x340.jpg 

The pro hatchery group Three Rivers Sportsmen Alliance in Oregon is planning to protest at the Native Fish Society Banquet on April 11, 2014. They also calling for a boycott of any business supporting the NFS.


boycottnfsmembers.jpg 







__________________
Poppy=Red Shed Spey Rod Pimp http://www.redshedflyshop.com FRSCA-Founding Member How you get the line out and fishing is personal preference so as long as it works and is easy no one should care but the caster. MSB
Rob Allen

Junior Member
Registered:
Posts: 24
Reply with quote  #36 
  The  video mentioned  is an edited piece of work by a biased organization.  Not  saying that to be disrespectful  but that is  the reality of the situation.

   All hatcheries  are  expensive and  are paid  for by  US  tax payers  that means  that  other people  are  paying   for our recreation.

  The concept of the hatchery/ harvest as a management  ideology has been proven by  history to be a failure

 Hatchery  fish, steelhead in particular have been proven  to have a negative impact on our wild stocks.

  so here is  the deal.

  Until  such time  as we  can produce hatchery fish that are beneficial to wild  stocks we need to suspend  the idea of massive hatchery plants  to subsidize harvest.  yes  we still need to stock  fish  for harvest  but not  lots of fish in every river.  Also we need to keep  experimenting  with hatchery practices,  who knows  we might  one  day  find a solution to all the  problems  associated  with hatcheries.

 Except in those  experimental  areas  we  need to  remove as many hatchery fish as we  can  before they  spawn in the wild and we need to plant  fish in numbers and locations  that minimize their negative impacts..


In my mind   it's  quite a simple issue to address and in lots of locations it is being addressed



__________________
C.F. Burkheimer Blank Production Manager
Dave Green

Member
Registered:
Posts: 33
Reply with quote  #37 
Thanks Rob,(and all who have offered comments),I've bit my tongue on this one the last cpl days here,but tend to lean moreso toward your perspective than any previous attempts to explain to me why hatch brats are so poo pooed on.
I should preclude this with stating that I am neither pro nor anti hatchery,and my first post was merely an attempt to gain an understanding of what the issues are surrounding hatchery fish that seems to have so many PNW anglers so wound up.
I do respect and applaud the efforts and passion of the wild camp to preserve and maintain the genetic diversity of wild strains,and agree that wherever feasable,wild runs should be protected from being "watered down" via spawning with implants,but at the same time,I agree with Rob that new and better hatchery methods could be the answer(saviour?) of some wild populations?
Again,kudos on the passion,but I think we need to keep an open mind towards all possible solutions,and in my mind,that likely includes better methods of enhancing wild stocks with tank hatched eggs?For instance,I have a very hard time believing that fry if released into the wild almost immediately after morphing from alevin,which is arguably the most vulnerable stage in any salmonids life cycle,would have any domestication or human dependency issues whatsoever.Essentially the only difference between these fry and wild stream hatched fry would be that exponentially more eggs would survive to the fry stage,and for all intents,one is just as wild as the other.

Anyhow,I would hope that the pro-wild at any and all cost camp doesn't let their passion and personnel bias cloud their judgement and remain open to alternative solutions,because hydro dams aren't going anywhere anytime soon,and as far as I know,no new habitat or streams can be expected to be created until some time after the next ice age?
Poppy Cummins

Avatar / Picture

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 699
Reply with quote  #38 
Quote:
Anyhow,I would hope that the pro-wild at any and all cost camp doesn't let their passion and personnel bias cloud their judgement and remain open to alternative solutions, 


How many years of failure does the pro-wild at all cost camp have to wait before they get to decide the steelhead hatchery gig ain't working? There have been years and years of studies without much positive being reported.

How many years do the wild fish have before they are no more?

If it wasn't for the passion of the pro-wild at any cost camp has the wild steelhead wouldn't have much of anyone on it's side.


__________________
Poppy=Red Shed Spey Rod Pimp http://www.redshedflyshop.com FRSCA-Founding Member How you get the line out and fishing is personal preference so as long as it works and is easy no one should care but the caster. MSB
Dave Green

Member
Registered:
Posts: 33
Reply with quote  #39 
I guess I just don't understand how it is that steelhead and many other salmonids have been successfully introduced all over the globe and gone on to create wild,self-sustaining populations,yet this is somehow an impossible and ill conceived alternative in their very own native PNW?
Ken Campbell

Avatar / Picture

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 102
Reply with quote  #40 
Explain to me how we "create"wild self sustaining populations.
__________________
Just because I look stupid don't mean I ain't.

Caledonian Heathen
FRSCA -Founding Member
William Olson

Member
Registered:
Posts: 37
Reply with quote  #41 
I think you are right, you don't understand.  Why do we need to create self sustaining populations in their native habitat when they were and are already there?  If hatcheries are the answer, why over 100 years of failure?  There are but a handful of rivers (in their native range) where hatchery fish have resulted in SMALL, self sustaining populations (again talking about steelhead).  Yet wild fish continue to decline, about the same rate as we exploit the habitat throughout their native range in the lower 48.  You can release hatchery fish, of every known configuration and scheme to improve them, and you still end up with a net of zero improvement.  You can't fix the habitat carrying capacity by throwing more fish at it.  NOTHING produces fish more adept at surviving in the wild than wild fish.  This is found in EVERY species we culture.  Zoo tigers don't do so well in the wild.  The facts are the facts, hatchery competition is one nail in the coffin, killing off wild steelhead.  This discussion is about wild and native steelhead in their native habitat.  You can't fix it once you kill them off and replace them with super artifish.  They are gone.

Thankfully the courts are finally siding with wild fish regarding their negative interactions with artifish.  A couple big decisions have come down in the past week.     

If the GL's are such a success, what happened to the native land locked Atlantic salmon and char species?  Are they flourishing?  The grayling of the GL's?  The grayling in Montana?  How about the bull char?  There is a reason they are listed as threatened in most of their native range out west...very sensitive species once you muck up the habitat and add species that aren't supposed to be there.  How have the cutthroat species throughout the inter-mountain west thrived since we moved s trutta and o mykiss into habitats they do not belong?  As much as I love the Henry's Fork and its feral rainbows, it is still a fake fishery.  Will take chasing 7" wild cutts in a creek 10' wide, flowing off of some high desert range 100 times out of 100 over chasing feral fish in fake fisheries.  That is my bias.  I don't fish Idaho because of its hatchery steelhead.  They are nice, but if the wild fish were ever to vanish (or be ran off completely by a super fit hatchery product) I will never go back.  I can catch my hearts content of transplanted feral trouts ten minutes from my doorstep.  No need to drive 620 miles to catch nothing but Dworshak stock.


Rob Allen

Junior Member
Registered:
Posts: 24
Reply with quote  #42 
I am  absolutely   for  saving wild  runs  at all costs and  have  some  radical view  towards  that end.  for instance i am 100%  for  raising  taxes on large business so  that they move out of the northwest and  decrease the human population  I am  all for  taking out  all the  dams  and  doing with less  electricity.   but  we live in the real  world  and people  want to  catch and  eat  some  fish.  That is the only reason i am not pro 100%  wild  fish and  anti hatchery.  I think there is  room  for hatchery  fish and  wild  fish.   contrary to  the video though  we are very greatly   slanted to hatchery fish and need  less of them than we currently have..  I am all for balance and balance  is less hatchery fish.  At least until such time as  the hatchery fish we plant  don't pose a risk to wild  fish.
__________________
C.F. Burkheimer Blank Production Manager
Dave Green

Member
Registered:
Posts: 33
Reply with quote  #43 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ken Campbell
Explain to me how we "create"wild self sustaining populations.

I'm not saying that you "create" wild populations,I'm saying that you can give existing wild populations a helping hand up by annually collecting FRESH eggs and milt from wild donors,raising said eggs to an appropriate age,be that fry,parr,or smolt,and returning them to their natal streams to carry on bizness as usual.
A previous post stated he thought collecting eggs from a wild fish was a waste of good eggs?I think what's a "waste of good eggs" in a struggling wild population is having a hen naturally deposit 5000 eggs in the gravel and only 50 survive past the fry stage,when those same 5000 eggs could have had near 100% survival rate in a protected environment?
-it's been stated here that the survival rate of hatch brats is much lower then natural stream reared smolts?So what/who cares if your potentially releasing 10 or 20 or 50x the juvenile fish from that same batch of 5000 eggs....many of them will make it.
-it's been stated that HBs become dependant on man and feed timers and don't know how to forage for themselves,escape predators?
A)they learn if you release them early enough,ie;fry that NEVER became human dependant in the first place
B)obviously many do indeed learn how to find food and return to their release streams in a few years 100x their released weight.
-it's been stated that hatchery brood stock can become inferior domesticated fish in as little as one generation.
Not if you don't keep brood stock and only collect fresh eggs from wild donors.

Again,I'm not talking about some "one size fits all" generic brand of steelhead being stocked from some smolt factory into any and all streams where anglers would like to see more fish.Im talking giving natal stream specific strands the helping hand they need to survive beyond the most vulnerable stage(s) of their lives,be that thru streamside rearing stations/micro hatcheries,or whatever?Hell that might be a cost saving idea right there....portable micro hatcheries that can raise eggs to fry and be easily moved to the next location every few years if it actually works and dramatically increases escapement numbers as intended??

"Creating" wild,self sustaining populations?I dunno,when is any given fish species considered to be once again "wild"?I don't see anybody turning their nose up at the opportunity to fish for "wild" New Zealand Browns,nor rainbows in Patagonia,Atlantics in Argentina?
As recently as 2012,it's been documented that approximately 50% of Lk Ontario Chinook salmon are "wild" reared,or non-hatchery fish if you prefer?
Lk.O steelhead in several tribs are now app. 75% to as high as 97% non-hatchery fish.
Lk Huron/Bruce Penninsula/Georgian Bay tribs,in some cases 100%,completely self sustaining,non-hatchery fish....and thriving,so please don't tell me that it is doomed to fail time and time again,I aint buyin it.

I can't speak for the other failed attempts at re-introducing native species,but as for the perpetual failure of Atlantic salmon in Lk Ontario,on the CDN side at least,it is for certain a habitat issue.They were extirpated from these waters over a century ago,and plain and simply,the conditions are no longer favourable nor suitable for Atlantics in the historic tribs where they once lived,the water temps are too high and the water levels are now too low during the crucial fall spawning run period...the fish just simply won't enter the rivers when they are supposed to and natural reproduction is virtually ZERO.
Now that said,I'm certain I read somewhere recently that there is another attempt to restore Atlantics being undertaken on the NY side in some eastern Lk O trib...I have no idea how that is working out for them?
As far as I know,Atlantics do ok in the Soo rapids region in the cold outflow of Lk Superior where historically they never existed...go figger? Again though,it's habitat,AS need cool clean water,and Lk S provides just that,although I really have no idea how much of that population is hatchery enhanced vs. natural(wild) reproduction?

All I'm saying is please dont try to convince me that hatcheries do not and simply cannot work,or for some mystical,unique reason that they are gauranteed doomed to fail EVERY time in regards to native PNW Steelhead,because there are hundreds if not thousands of examples where it does in fact work all over the globe.
A)it needs to be done properly
B)your NEVER going to have self sustaining populations of wild fish so long as prevails this hook n cook mentality within the masses that want to bonk every fish that they bring to hand.100% C&R of wild fish aside,in this very thread I've read of so called "anglers" rough treatment of nates that are actually dissapointed when the fish they land is not a legally edible hatch brat.
Rough handling,and bait and gear caught wild fish C&R mortality is certainly far higher then single barbless fly caught fish.You want to see wayyyyy fewer hatchery fish in your rivers,the simplest easy fix is 100% C&R of ALL Steelhead,gauranteed that will weed out untold thousands of worm drowners and jewellery chuckers in short order and correspondingly reduce the high demand for hatchery enhanced rivers.Reeks of flyfishing elitism?Maybe so,but,sorry,you can't have it both ways.You can blow up EVERY concrete plug on the entire west coast,opening up thousands of miles of prime spawning grounds once again,and you could still never produce enough wild steelhead to satisfy the demand of the growing 21st century population,just the way it is unfortunately.
Ken Campbell

Avatar / Picture

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 102
Reply with quote  #44 
So you are arguing that we need hatchery fish so people can kill them?

This discussion has crystalized one thought for me personally. I don't feel like I have any right, nor does the human race have any right to do what we please with the planet. The oceans, lakes, and streams are not our aquariums to tinker with. Would that we had left well enough alone and shown some restraint in our consumptive and reproductive habits....




__________________
Just because I look stupid don't mean I ain't.

Caledonian Heathen
FRSCA -Founding Member
Rob Allen

Junior Member
Registered:
Posts: 24
Reply with quote  #45 
Dave,

If you look at efforts to restore Redfish lake  sockeye  you'll see that  they used   just  about  every type of method possible.  The two methods  that  had the highest  smolt to adult  survival  were   the  fish that they  caught  at the hatchery and transported up river to spawn on their own  and  secondly  where they  took the eggs  fertilized them  and then  put them in  spawning gravel  in the  stream.  for the purposes of restoration  gravel to gravel  had the  best  survival  rate.  I  don't necessarily think it's a  waste to take  wild  eggs  and use them for restoration like they did  there.  what I think is a waste  and a crime  is  to take  eggs  and  raise them in a hatchery  for the purpose of  harvest.  We  have domesticated  stocks  for  that  already.

__________________
C.F. Burkheimer Blank Production Manager
Previous Topic | Next Topic
Print
Reply

Quick Navigation:

Easily create a Forum Website with Website Toolbox.