Results 1 to 7 of 7
  1. #1

    What rivers have recovered their wild populations after hatchery fish were removed?

    Have been researching examples, but am coming to the conclusion that there are few examples, and the ones that are out there, i.e. Oregon Coastal Coho, Wind, Molalla, Siletz, etc., don't hold up under close scrutiny in several cases that removing hatchery fish was a main reason for wild increases, and in addition, there are many examples were removing hatchery did not help the population at all, and in fact the population continues to decline. In my mind, it's more likely removing the fishing pressure was more a factor than reducing hatchery/wild interactions. Removing hatchery fish also creates it's own limiting factors, as there are no longer nutrients in the form of carcasses they provided, and there is no supplementation with the wild population. Natural production is the ideal way to recover these runs, but would that really happen without hatchery fish?

  2. #2
    I was really upset when they removed the hatchery summers from the Upper Clack and Mollala I have some great memories of those fisheries. I do believe that removing them from the upper Clack did nothing...

  3. #3
    I saw one of those ghost fish snorkeling a few of the Mo's thermal refugia. Best guess, 30 of those summers left, some of which are strays, but not the one I saw. A beauty of a six pound, unclipped summer. Tons of nice trout in those holes. Bet they were teaming with summer steelhead back in the day. I know quite a few folks that loved that summer run. Sounds like it was a hoot.

    Dismal squared kind of year for the chinook on the Mo. The acclimation of spring chinook should give that run a boost enough to make it worth fishing. Love catching and releasing winter steelhead on that river.

  4. #4
    Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    Santa Rosa, California
    Posts
    90
    Straight line conservation methods do not work. Removing hatchery fish from rivers that we've damaged is about as irresponsible as it comes. The folks that are behind the removal of the hatchery fish should also back the removal of running water from their homes. If we disrupt the natural flow of rivers for the purpose of urbanization then we must also take responsibility for the damages that will occur. We took responsibility in the 1800's when the hatchery fish programs were started. Are we now saying that we no longer need to be responsible for our actions?

    Sorry folks but I'm with Tony, it flat out ticks me off.
    Last edited by sgs; 09-29-2013 at 07:31 PM.

  5. #5
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Willamette Valley
    Posts
    180
    Good topic and good responses. I really feel the problem is with the managers of those rivers who want to make a name for themselves and want to have it on record for future promotion that they are responsible for returning the wild runs, the problem is people who are on that promotion track are never punished for their GROSS failures, because their boss think it reflects bad on him/her. These people want you to think they are looking out for wildlife but it’s just themselves,

  6. #6
    There are "certain groups" that want all hatchery production ceased permanently.

    click on this and read... There are lawsuits taking place right now about all this and many people don't know about it.

    It's funny how Marmot was removed and now these groups want the hatchery fish removed as well. Probably should have left the dam where it was... If your job is raising money then I guess you always need to be up to something.


    Read this page...

    http://nativefishsociety.org/index.p...t-initiatives/

    Maybe they should work on some type of World War Z (III) Program?



    Then read this page....

    http://www.oregonlive.com/news/orego..._with_old.html


    Who is right and who is wrong????

  7. #7
    I think part of the issue, is that in order to make a case to the public (for or against) things get oversimplified. That native fish link above is worded so carefully, its not only overly simplistic, but deceptive. Prime choice of words "hunting and ESA listed animal." Hatchery fish are basically livestock. Sure there is bycatch in commercial fisheries, but in the absence of hatchery brats, the only thing left to target will be wild fish.

    I have read that some current research suggests hatchery steelhead introgression (cross breeding) only occurs when the river is well below wild spawner capacity. But what if (as is noted above) the river is impacted enough by development, that there is little capacity? If there is no capacity, what's the point of ending hatchery supplementation?

    On the other hand, there is the John Day. No dams, no brats, little development and 10,000+ wild fish return on good years.

    It's complicated. I suspect habitat improvement is a better first step. Dams are one thing, but off channel habitat, flood plain function, woody debris in the river are all critical to salmonid rearing. Perhaps hatchery fish could be removed once there is a better chance of wild fish gaining a footing.

    Getting rid of brats will reduce angler interest. Without anglers, I fear many rivers will have no friends. And in a world of diminishing resources, I think rivers need all the friends they can get.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •