RECENTLY ON TOL:
TOL Our Town
- A tumblr site dedicated to the people and places that make up Oregon and Southwest Washington.
TAGS:
thoffnagle's comments:
on Fishing for Answers
John,
You're a great politician and lobbyist for your clients. You make a conciliatory statement and then one more statement to one-up what you perceive as the competition. I'll admit that I'm not familiar with the history of hatchery reform (and I suspect that you aren't either) but I'm wondering if you can support your contention that "it's clear that the tribes kicked off the reform movement and have been its chief practitioners." If you can't back it up, let's not be making statements like that. I can document that the tribes that I work with are resisting hatchery reforms suggested by two independent scientific review groups. But the tribes aren't the only ones - other agencies are, as well, and BPA doesn't want to fund the work that they are mandated to do. So, there's plenty of blame to go around.
My hope is that some day we won't need hatcheries. That's probably unrealistic. More realistic is to find a way to make hatcheries function with minimal detrimental effect on the populations that we are trying to save (it is becoming increasingly clear that any time spent in a hatchery affects the fish in ways that make them less able to function in nature and there is no way to completely prevent that).
I work closely with tribal fisheries research biologists and have a great relationship with them (they are co-managers, collaborators and friends). I don't see this as a competition. But having people constantly trying to stick their chest out and show that their group is doing better isn't serving the resource. You know, it's amazing what you can get done when you don't care who gets the credit. From my view, as a fisheries biologist who evaluates the effects of hatcheries, I see both innovation and a lack of it in all groups. I've worked with tribes in North Dakota, Arizona and the northwest and have found that Indians are no different from non-Indians - some look to make improvements, while others just want the fish and don't care where they came from. So, let's just work together toward fixing what we have all broken and stop caring about who gets the credit.
posted 3 years, 1 month ago
view in context
on Fishing for Answers
The best that you can say about the hatchery program on the Imnaha River is that it MAY have helped maintain the population - that can't be said definitively, however. What can be said is that it has not helped increase the number of natural adults that have returned to the river. Yes, that number has been higher in the last few years but you need to compare it to unsupplemented streams to see if the supplementation program has had an effect. What we have found is that the unsupplemented streams have also had their abundance of natural adults increase as the Imnaha popualtion has increased. The conclusion, therefore, is that the hatchery has not had much, if any, effect on the increase in natural adults. What we have also seen is that the number of adult offspring produced by naturally spawning salmon is lower in the Imnaha River than in unsupplemented streams in the Snake River Basin. That should not have happened if the hatchery program was beneficial.
And the habitat in the major spawning areas of the Imnaha River is pristine or nearly so. There are no major diversions nor mining or logging damage that remain in those areas (above Crazyman Creek - Chinook spawn well above Little Sheep Creek, as you should know).
As for the Chinook fishery in the Imnaha, it is usually of a very short duration because there are so few natural salmon and an overabundance of hatchery salmon. The Imnaha hatchery program is larger than it should be, which has been pointed out by independent scientific groups. The Imnaha River hatchery supplementation program is a classic example of one that is in desperate need of revision.
posted 3 years, 1 month ago
view in context
on Fishing for Answers
John,
Again, you make it sound like the tribes are the only ones that have been working to reform the way that hatcheries are managed. That is hardly the case. There are both innovative and old school biologists that work for the tribes, as well as for other agencies. Let's give a little credit where credit is due and not just spin things in favor of your employers.
Hatcheries are here to stay. But the way that they are managed needs to be changed dramatically. That change is moving much more slowly than it should be and the tribes are just as guilty as most of the state and federal agencies that co-manage this resource.
posted 3 years, 1 month ago
view in context
on Fishing for Answers
John,
I presume that you are not saying that tribal hatcheries are better than those run by state or federal agencies....are you? Some hatcheries are run better than others - there are better and worse tribal and non-tribal hatcheries. While I don't completely agree with Mr. Govin's comments, I see nothing wrong with his use of the term "hatchery fish."
posted 3 years, 1 month ago
view in context
on Fishing for Answers
John,
You cite the Imnaha River as an example of a "functioning ecosystem" because there are hatchery salmon in it. Most of the salmon habitat in the Imnaha is in wilderness or forest service land and the habitat is nearly pristine.
You are apparently unaware that there is no evidence that hatchery supplementation has helped that natural Chinook population at all and may be hurting it. After 28 years of supplementation, the number of natural adults returning each year has not increased and the number of natural adults that return per adult that spawned them in nature has gone down. This is an indication that, at best, hatchery salmon are ineffective at producing the next generation of adults and/or, at worst, the hatchery program may actually be hurting the population.
Tim Hoffnagle, Ph.D.
posted 3 years, 1 month ago
view in context
on Fishing for Answers
Mr. Ellis,
Could it be that the Upper Columbia River spring Chinook are indistinguishable from the Carson hatchery salmon becasue the Carson hatchery salmon have strayed all over the place? Some hatchery stocks, such as Carson and Rapid River Chinook and Wallowa steelhead have been known to stray a lot! That is why the Carson and Rapid River stocks are not used as much as they used to be and the Wallowa river stock is being managed (they are spawnign the early run fish) to try to stop the straying.
Straying (returning to spawn in places other than where they were released) is another huge problem with some stocks of hatchery fish. They can end up polluting the genes of native populations.
posted 3 years, 1 month ago
view in context
on Fishing for Answers
85% hatchery fish is still far too high!
And for those who don't kow (for the sake of disclosure), Stuart Ellis works for the Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fisheries Commission. The same organization that John Platt works for.
posted 3 years, 1 month ago
view in context
on Fishing for Answers
Hatcheries, unfortunately, are a necessity. Unfortunately, they are the only option to replacing salmon that can no longer access their former spawning gorunds, such as the upper Snake and Columbia rivers. However, hatcheries most definitely produce fish that are inferior to natural salmon. Hatchery salmon do not reproduce as well in nature, so their use for restoring populations after (if?) we restore their habitat is very much in question. So, hatcheries must be used sparingly and should be run in such a manner that they put themselves out of business (i.e., quickly restore numbers so that a population can be self-sustaining).
posted 3 years, 1 month ago
view in context
