Bull Trout Critical Habitat Revision

On January 13, 2010, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service proposed to revise its 2005 designation of critical habitat for the bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus), a threatened species protected under the Endangered Species Act.

In total, the Service proposes to designate approximately 22,679 miles of streams and 533,426 acres of lakes and reservoirs in Idaho, Oregon, Washington, Montana and Nevada as critical habitat for the wide-ranging fish. The proposal includes 985 miles of marine shoreline in Washington.
The proposed revision is the result of extensive review of our earlier bull trout critical habitat proposals and 2005 designation, public comments and new information. The Service voluntarily embarked on this re-examination to ensure that the best science was used to identify the features and areas essential to the conservation of the species.
Bull trout depend on cold, clear water and are excellent indicators of water quality. Protecting and restoring their habitat contributes to the water quality of rivers and lakes throughout the Northwest.

The full report of this revision appears here Bull Trout critical habitat revision

What Is Wrong With These Pictures?

I'm not going to give some wordy dissertation on all the things wrong with these picture because it's all too obvious.

Yes it's a nice wild winter steelhead that the angler is rightfully proud of. I doubt the claim that is is 20 lbs though.
What concerns me is the obvious.
Not only does the first guy have his picture taken with this BLEEDING wild fish but his partner needs to get into the act.
Will this bleeding fish die? I don't know...hopefully not. I do know this much though. Instead of giving this angler a bunch of "adda boys" and "you da man" he should be instructed on why that fish should not have been held out of the water.

Jimi Hendrix Live At WOODSTOCK

I don't care what anyone says Hendrix was a goddamn genius! We'll never see the likes of him again unfortunately.

Fly vs Gear

There seems to be some kind of undeclared war here in the Pacific northwest between the two types of fishing styles and I am trying to figure it all out.
Hell, perhaps I have helped to perpetuate it! If I did I want to categorically state right now that I bear no animosity towards most of the conventional gear/bait crowd. There are many ethical and conservation minded anglers up here that do not fly fish.
There are also many that do fly fish who are the furthest thing from being ethical. The continuing exploitation of Kilchis and Miami river chum salmon is an example of what I mean by that statement
Too many times  have I witnessed fly anglers swinging their chartreuse yarn fly through a bunch of spawning or near spawning chum salmon. More times than not these fish are foul hooked. That, my friends is not ethical! Neither is careless wading through salmon spawning redds and it happens way too much.
I've seen both type of anglers abusing these fish.
So if we fly anglers try to act like we are a cut above the common fishing crowds then we are not!
When I see something posted on that puts fly fishing in a bad light I react! I do not like the way it reflects on the rest of us.

Like I've also said before I have no ulterior motives in maintaining this blog. I do not make one red cent from doing this blog as it is kind of my own personal journal. With that in mind and since it is my blog I will say things that may not be popular and the backlash is something I can live with.
I generally try to stay out of the popular areas where guys are fishing with conventional gear because I need room to swing flies on my spey rod. The water frequented by gear anglers is not usually suited to fly fishing.
Inevitably, however, I will cross paths with non-fly fishers, usually in drift boats.
A lot of times I will get cut off by these guys and sometimes it is well known guides who are the worst offenders, especially in Tillamook county. Being by myself I rarely say anything not wishing to embarrass these guys in front of their paying clients. I could name names that would be familiar to many who read this blog.
This year will be different. I have taken it too long and I guess if I am going to bitch here I should say something right then and there. I will also be very vocal during the steelhead broodstock "capture" period that is coming up.
So if you are reading this and know me then you know I have always been respectful on the river bank. If you float by me and don't cut me off then we will great along great but if you cut me off then I will politely bring it to your attention.
Heck we may not even encounter each other because of posted property that I can no longer fish or physical limitations on my part that keep from areas that I used to fish.
I wish I could say that there are plenty of fish to go around for everyone but, thanks to stupefying fisheries management by the state, that is not the case anymore, it's just a fact of life.

There Ought To Be A Law

If I were elected or anointed Grand Imperial Exalted Ruler of all things fly fishing I think there would be some laws I would enact for the betterment of the sport.
Here is a glimpse of some of them.

1.No indicators on bamboo rods

****photo removed because person might be embarassed from using an indicator on a bamboo rod****

This just might be a capitol offense.

2.Ban all flies tied to look like trout pellets
Offender would be forced to eat a bowl of real trout pellets covered in shrimp scent

3.No fly fishing pictures where the angler has the rod in his mouth
Violators will be forced to fish with Snoopy rods and Powerbait for the rest of their lives

4.No more helicoptering into remote fishing locations
If you cannot reach a place by foot, boat or automobile maybe it's meant to be left alone....ya think?

5.All fly anglers required to read at least one Haig-Brown book a year
We could all benefit from doing this.

6.No using terms like "Rip some lips"
Offenders will have their lips ripped

7.Must call rivers by their full names and not dumb abbreviations like "The 'Tucca(Nestucca) The Big "D" (Deschutes) or The "Willy"(The Wilson or Willamette)
Offenders will be forced to drink water from the Willamette after a rainstorm

8.When purchasing a spey rod the angler has to swear an oath to not attach an indicator of any kind to it
Violators will have a "Thingamabobber" attached to their private parts

9.Fly anglers are prohibited from describing themselves a "Trout Bums" if they are not actual "Trout Bums"
Offender will have to do community service at a soup kitchen

10.Fly fishermen shall never use pencil lead to get their fly on the bottom
If convicted the offender will be forced to wear a Buzz Ramsey cowboy hat for the rest of their lives and be an administrator on ifish.net

Well there you have it loyal angling subjects. I am going to hire former Blackwater employees to keep tabs along the river.

****Note****
This post is tongue in cheek so don't get offended and send anonymous hate mail comments to me.

The Attitude Problem by Erik Helm

This is from my friend Erik Helm's blog The Classical Angler
I'm going to use some stronger adjectives than what Erik uses to describe these guys. I don't know what website these pictures came from but I'll bet it's one in the Pacific Northwest. I see this kind of crap way too much.


The Attitude Problem by Erik Helm

Some readers of the Classical Angler may wonder from time to time why I seem to get my knickers all bunched up over what I perceive as an attitude problem among many of today's steelhead "Hot Sticks."

Here is a photo that will say it all. I am not going to say who it is, nor where it came from and have blacked out the faces, but even if it is a hatchery fish, it not only shows disrespect, but almost displays a kind of psychosis.

Pouring beer into a steelhead's mouth is beyond silly. It is childish. Childish behavior and unsporting. Especially as this was the 'last rights' before killing the fish.
Grow up

And another from a different site. Yes, they are only hatchery fish, but should they be treated like this, much less photographed and posted on the web as if it were a badge of coolness?


Update 1/21/10 -

If, by the posting of Erik's blog entry, I made one person think about this type of in your face, rip some lips, X-Games fly fishing might not be well received by the non-fishing public then it was worth the criticism I received.
I've said before that this blog is not my way of trying to trumpet my own popularity, I just am not interested in being some sort of fly fishing celebrity. What I do care about is the perception of what fly fishing is and is not.
The pictures posted above did nothing to help that. When we try to get waters set aside for no bait or fly fishing only this kind of stuff is always thrown up in our face.
So maybe next time someone will think about it.
My thanks go to Erik Helm. He is a true sportsman and an example of what fly fishing is or should be.

The Evolution of an Angler

To commemorate my very first steelhead on January 17, 1975 I am bringing back this "blast from the past" blog entry from three years ago.
Yes I still remember that Sandy river steelhead. The steelhead was a female and was spitting single eggs but it did not matter to me because I was hooked for life. She had an intact adipose fin because 35 year ago hatchery steelhead were not clipped like they are today. I am pretty sure this was a hatchery fish but do not know for sure.
The rod pictured is the first rod I ever built and this trip was the first time I had taken it out.At the time made me a firm believer in new rod mojo but that belief has been blown to smithereens a number of times in subsequent years.

Sandy River

January 17, 1975

You've no doubt heard the old saying about the different stages of a fisherman. First stage is to catch A FISH. Second stage is to catch A LOT OF FISH. Third stage is TO CATCH A BIG FISH and so on. I feel that progression is pretty accurate if the end result of your angling life is to put a bunch of fish on your stringer, in your creel and in your freezer. If you feel you've arrived at the hallowed halls of the fishing luminaries of days gone and you're at the pinnacle of your sport! Well if that is all you you wanted to accomplish then you might as well read no farther and get back to inventing the next breakthrough in egg cures because the rest of this epic story on this historical piece of literature I call "The Quiet Pool" will not apply to you.
I would hope that my life as an angler has consisted of a lot more than a bunch of snap shots of me holding dead fish with their vacate fixed staring eyes of death. Oh sure I have plenty of those from those bygone days when I had a full head of hair and could actually see what shoes I was wearing that day. Those pictures do bring back a flood of memories of a time when it seemed that there were plenty of fish to kill and let get freezer burned in the process.
So don't think that I not sentimental that way because I am. I think about the days when there was never a need, or so we thought, to fin-clip steelhead because there were plenty to go around. The hatchery fish were plentiful and who the heck cared about wild fish...what were they anyway?
As I progressed through my angling life I began to see things that troubled me. I would see an utter disregard for not only the wild fish that were suffering more than I could begin to imagine, but also the rivers and the habitat that sustained these wild fish. Don't think for a minute though, that this was some sort of moment of clarity like an alcoholic might have. It was a long tough journey! I mistakenly followed a few of those that I would call "false prophets" of fishery management and conservation. I supported and advocated programs that were harmful to wild fish....I was in a word, naive.
In 1975 I met Bill McMillan and heard him speak at The Anglers Club of Portland. He talked about his beloved Washougal river and the troubling way the state of Washington was managing it. He talked about the importance of wild steelhead to the over all well being of the river.
When the Washougal did finally yield a beautiful thirteen pound summer steelhead on a brown stone fly pattern one July day so many years ago I marvelled at the beauty of this fish. The fins stood straight and full an I thought this must be what McMillan is talking about. This must be a wild steelhead! Remember though, I said this journey was a long tough one and so even though something deep inside of me told me to release this fish I did not. I killed it and still have all the glory pictures from that day.
I cherished the memories of that fish and do to this day but with just a bit of regret that I should have released that fish.
Back then the idea of catch and release was completely foreign to my thinking but the first inkling that there was something bigger than just killing a limit of fish was creeping into my subconscious.
I took a sabbatical from fly fishing for a few years as I pursued other things but the fly fishing "bug" never really left. I saw that the salmon and steelhead runs took a nose dive and the big numbers of my early years of northwest fishing were no longer there.
A few trips here and there with friends kept my interest up and I returned to fishing full force. I plunged head long into what I thought were worthwhile organizations that I also thought did the resource some good. Well they didn't! They amounted to what were pretty much just glorified fishing clubs. I learned that when it came right down to actually standing up for wild fish and their habitat they were conspicously absent. Yes they put on a good show but it all came down to supporting hatcheries and wrong headed programs that did more harm than good.
So fast forward to where I am at today. I believe I've made some good progress to finally being what I would call a good steward.
Am I there yet? No! There are a lot of things I need to learn but I think I am still evolving and instead of beating my self up for the opportunities I've missed or squandered I can look forward to making a difference and hopefully some of you will too!

ODFW Priorities 2009-2011 - What is Missing here?

I copied this from Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife's website. Under agency priorities the items below are listed exactly as they appear on that website.

Agency Priorities for 2009-2011

•Promote participation in hunting, fishing, wildlife viewing, and development of outdoor skills
•Continue to implement the Conservation and Near shore Strategies
•Increase workforce diversity
•Promote career development and leadership opportunities
•Implement strategies to increase fishing, hunting, and wildlife viewing opportunities

Is there something missing here? Do you see any reference to maybe...PROTECTING WILD SALMONIDS AND THEIR HABITAT???????

What happened to ODFW's mission statement ? "To protect and enhance Oregon's fish and wildlife and their habitats for use and enjoyment by present and future generations"
Well it's still there but one has to ask if this agency is living up to that statement. Instead it seems like ODFW's main thrust is what is covered in their priorities for the next couple of years. Get people out on the river and target angling opportunities.
They made their intentions well known as far back as 2001 when they catered to a handful of north coast bait guides and started the steelhead broodstock programs on several coastal rivers. Then the whole coastal cutthroat trout debacle of 2004 when they were poorly prepared to present convincing arguments in favor of a harvest of these wild trout....a mistake they did not repeat in 2008 when the commission approved a harvest of these wild trout even though ODFW's evidence for such a harvest was sketchy at best
Then of course the desire by ODFW and a few locals on the North Umpqua to once again allow a harvest of wild winter steelhead on that river.
Actually their priorities have never been clearer to me. Wild salmon and steelhead will be stuck sucking hind tit in favor of selling tags and licenses and increasing angling opportunities.
It makes sense that the N.Umpqua steelhead would be the next target since ODFW has marginalized wild salmonid populations over the years and the North Umpqua steelhead were just about all that was left to exploit.
I've said it before and will say it again that I have no confidence in this agency. While you might be saying "So tell us something that we don't know Shane" and it's true that I bitch about ODFW a lot. The thing is that other former ODFW cheerleaders are now doing the same! It took an ill conceived fee increase to wake people up but at least they have woke up. It might be too late but an fed up populace can make a difference in a constructive way.
I would urge any of you that can to attend the upcoming public budget meetings that ODFW will hold throughout the state. Ask questions and demand answers.
It's obvious that ODFW has put conservation issues on the back burner and even though they recently found evidence of the harm that sodium sulfite egg cures cause it should be noted that they did not initiate the study nor did they pay for it!
It's been said many times in many places that indifference to what is important will kill more wild salmon and steelhead than gill nets, sea lions and sports anglers.

If The Shoe Fits

Yes I know I've bitched about this before but I'm going to do it again dammit!
Have any of you ever made money by promoting the use of wild salmonids? Have you hoisted a wild salmon,steelhead or trout out of the water for a picture? Are you a professional guide? Do you own and operate a mega internet fishing web site?
If you answered yes to any of these then you are a user of a fragile resource. To be fair I know of a few professional guides that give to wild fisheries much more than they receive but those guides are scarce.
So you have to ask yourself in all of this just how much you really care about wild salmon and steelhead. Oh sure we can all give wild fish a lot of lip service and act all concerned on the internet but do you take it further than that? Do you only attend the Fish and Wildlife meetings that will make your business more profitable or are you there when the best interest of wild fish are at stake?
If you don't care or just act like you care then you are just an exploiter, a carpetbagger and a user.
Take the steelhead broodstock programs for instance. I've had more than one pro guide tell me about how much they cares about wild fish but they think nothing of exploiting these wild fish for profit! What is wrong with that picture?
Every one of those guides parrot the same regurgitated crap about how much they care but in reality they only care about the paying customers in their boat and how many wild fish they can hook.
I would have a hell of a lot more respect for these clowns if they told the truth and said they are only in it for the money and when that resource dwindles they will move on to another one to take advantage of.
Then we have the huge internet fishing web site owners whose site is so plastered with paid advertising banners that you can barely sift you way through them to find any useful content.
They also will lament the sorry state of our fisheries while taking money and giving nothing back! These people are vampires! Sucking off the life blood of wild fish for profit and giving back nothing in return. They, in fact have been respondsible for maxing out the rivers with thousands of new anglers.
Last but not least are the young fishing superstars. The self proclaimed "studs" plaster their arrogant images of all the fish they catch. They take wild salmon and steelhead out of the water and into their drift boat for multiple pictures that they can post on the big internet fishing forums. Will you see them do anything to actually benefit the wild fish that they so easily catch and hoist out of the water to satisfy their need to be honored by their fishing peers. I have yet to see the most ardent fishing "stars" at any function that would help wild fish.
I've come to the point, in the almost 4 years of writing this blog,where I really don't care who gets offended and angry at what I post. I am singling out those whose ego or greed is what is wrong with our fishing these days. I don't care if they are bait fishermen or fly fishermen because if the damn shoe fits then wear it or get the hell out of the way of those that truly do care.

What is in Store for Wild Salmonids in the Next Decade?

Some of you already have Bill's blog bookmarked but for those that do not this is great information and it bears repeating.




WHAT DOES THE NEXT DECADE HOLD FOR WILD SALMONIDS?
By Bill Bakke Home Waters and Wild Fish

Now that year-end comments and reviews have been made it is time for new-year predictions. It is customary to make predictions based on guesses and absolutely no information other than what one knows of the past and based on past experiences one can guess about the future. So what are my guess-predictions of the future for native wild salmonids in the Pacific Northwest?


I know from experience that policy changes in salmonid management, this means salmon, trout, and steelhead, take at least ten years to hit the ground. So predictions about what will happen to salmonids can be checked in no less than a decade from now. Since most of our major problems have a policy link, that is, people have to decide to do something and once the decision is made the institutional ship must be changed and that is what slows every thing down, for the machinery of fish management is the main problem in solving problems. This process also involves governors and legislators and even congress, and for the most part they come in three flavors ranging from “Don’t care,” “Luke-Warm,” and “Openly Hostile.”


Agencies fear change and resist it with all their power. When I was able to convince the ODFW commission to adopt a wild fish management policy for Oregon salmonids in 1978, the opposition form the agency staff was remarkable and the policy was never really implemented before they revised it to make it more bullet proof to legal actions. It took 16 years to get stocked hatchery trout out of the Metolius River, but it took the retirement of the district biologist to make it happen. When I sought a slot-regulation for the Deschutes rainbow fishery, the staff was the major opponent. If it was not for the Chief of Fisheries, Dr. Harry Wagner, and his sidekick Jim Lichatowich as the deputy chief, the trout fishery on the Deschutes would still be based on hatchery trout, bait, and a kill fishery.


So making predictions about the next decade is really pretty simple: more of the same and massive resistance to change by state, federal, and tribal agencies; inattention or hostility form governors and legislators; with congress maintaining status quo on funding and remaining unaccountable for the public funds they shovel into state and tribal coffers. The federal agencies will continue to be miniaturized by funding cuts, but it is possible that there will be less interference on questions of science by the White House, even though the federal agency leadership will continue to be panting pets of the fish managers.


The critical areas of salmonids problem solving that will be addressed in the next decade are:


 Conservation requirements for each wild, native salmonid population in each watershed. (Managers are being forced to move in this direction, but progress is slow and it will not happen in this decade. This has been applied to wild Atlantic salmon in Canada.)


 Hatchery reform so that hatchery fish do not contribute to the natural spawning of wild fish. (This is being discussed and weirs are proposed like those that NFS and ODFW have placed on three Deschutes tributaries. A science review team has recommended reducing but not eliminating naturally spawning hatchery fish. There will be some movement in this decade, but only a few rivers will be treated in this decade and protection of wild salmonids will be less than complete.)


 Harvest reform so that the by-catch mortality of wild fish is nearly zero. (The state of Oregon is resistant to applying harvest methods to reduce the kill of wild fish, but the state of Washington and Colville Tribe are testing the use of seines to live capture fish without harm. If an initiative petition is adopted by voters in Oregon this issue could be resolved in this decade.)


 Habitat management/protection fully addresses the life history requirements of wild, native salmonids and increases the productive capacity of wild populations. (Setting standards to protect and increase habitat productivity for salmonid watersheds by state agencies will not happen in this decade, however, improvements will be made on federal lands, but many species and wild populations will not directly benefit.)


 Spawner abundance objectives for wild, native salmonids provide full utilization of spawning and rearing habitats. (Interim spawner abundance objectives have been suggested for most ESA-listed species, but there is no indication that these objectives are taken seriously by state fish managers, for it constrains harvest. There will be little progress on this issue in the next decade without legal action.)




 Nutrient enrichment of streams from spawner carcasses and eggs is enough to increase the productivity of streams for naturally produced wild salmonids. Streams will have nutrient enrichment targets from naturally spawned salmonids and management successfully achieves these targets annually. (State and tribal fish managers are not supportive of nutrient enrichment of streams if it comes from natural spawners. There is some pretense at doing this work using hatchery fish carcasses, but nutrient enrichment goals have not been established for each stream. There will be some progress in this during the decade, but not enough to provide much value to natural populations.)


 Cured salmon eggs no longer contain the toxin sulfite and contribute to mortality of juvenile salmonids. (The state fish managers are not interested in moving to remove toxins from cured eggs used as bait even though their own research indicates that 30% or more of the juvenile salmonids that ingest these baits are killed. It will take legal action to move this issue forward this decade.)


 Juvenile salmonids are protected in streams with bait and barbless hook restricted fisheries. (The state fish agencies have decided that selling more angling licenses is more important than protecting wild salmonid juveniles in trout fisheries. The states are using trout kill fisheries to harvest residualized hatchery steelhead in streams as a justification to maintain excessive hatchery releases and using trout fishing as a conservation tool. The issue is regressing and will not be resolved in this decade.)


 Ecological effects of competition for food and space, from disease transmission, and from predation and predator attraction from hatchery fish is resolved to protect wild, native salmonids. (The first impact wild fish see from a hatchery program is a swarm of hatchery fish released into rivers. There has been little research on this issue, but what has been done points to a severe impact on the abundance of wild salmonids. There will be lots of foot dragging on this issue by the state fish managers because it is a threat to the hatchery programs and the federal funding they get to run them.)


 Passage barriers for adult and juvenile salmonids are removed so that fish have full access to their natural distribution in watersheds. (Passage barriers take many forms and come under the authority of many jurisdictions. Barriers include culverts, diversion dams, hydro dams, storage dams, dewatered streams below diversions. All of our rivers are affected and it will take a focused and well funded effort and commitment by jurisdictions to solve this problem. Progress will be made in this next decade, but it will be slow and under funded.


 Transported smolts in the Columbia River no longer generate adults that stray into non-natal watersheds and disrupt the reproductive success of wild salmonids. (In the 1980s researches for NMFS identified that transported steelhead were lost (failed to return to their home river or hatchery release point), but NMFS administrators were anxious to confirm transportation as the solution to dam mortality. Since then, recent research confirms that transported steelhead are lost and have a high stray rate. In response NFS and ODFW have constructed hatchery fish exclusion weirs on three tributaries of the Deschutes, so that they do not interbreed with wild fish. However, some hatchery fish are not externally marked and wild fish stray as well, so the weirs are only a partial fix of a bad fish management policy affecting all rivers. Given the resistance of NMFS and the state agencies to their own research, it is unlikely that much progress on this problem will be made in the next decade.)


 Ocean acidification from carbon dioxide will be arrested and reduced to near normal conditions. (Increasing use of coal power plants in Asia is contributing to global warming and ocean acidification. The impact on the ocean may cause it to be less productive for salmonids. Acid precipitation in the Northwest will also acidify our streams. The effect of this pollution is well documented in eastern Canada where some salmon runs have gone extinct due to acid precipitation from coal plants in the eastern United States. Monitoring of this problem is poor in the Northwest, and we can look forward to rivers not only having lower summer flows that are warmer, but more acid. Resolving this international pollution problem is not likely to progress much in the next decade.)


 ESA-listed species will have recovery plans in place and recovery measures are increasing the reproductive success of threatened species. (Since salmon were first listed in 1991 there are few recovery plans in place to recover threatened species. There has been more scientific evaluation of population status recently and we have a blue print of what needs to be done in many ESUs, but getting these plans implemented by the state and federal fish agencies will be slow and difficult because they disrupt established management policy. There will be important advances in our understanding of what to do, but doing it will be slow and awkward over the next decade.)


 The cost to produce a hatchery fish that is caught in a fishery is routinely evaluated for each hatchery program in the region. (Hatcheries consume about 40% of the salmonid management budget at the state and regional levels. This large investment of public money has not been evaluated from the perspective of how much it costs to produce a fish that is actually harvested. When the economic team at the Power Council evaluated selected hatcheries in 2002, they found that the cost to catch was higher than the economic benefit of the salmon that were harvested. When the economists proposed to do an economic evaluation of all Columbia River hatcheries, the Power Council refused to fund the study. A recent economic study of Mitchell Act Hatcheries shows that all Mitchell Act Hatchery production for all species is a deficit program. The contractor, NMFS, fired that economic team, and another economic study was solicited to get a more favorable answer. The fish management agencies do not want a cost-benefit analysis of the public funded hatchery program. It is unlikely that this will change in the next decade.)


 Water quality limited streams for temperature and sediment affect all watersheds in the region. (Most river basins in Northwest states are water quality limited and a major reason goes to high water temperatures and sediment that degrade streams for salmonid production. There are many thousands of miles of affected streams but state and federal agencies have been impossibly slow in developing a resolution to this non-point source pollution problem. Too many established commercial uses of our watersheds would be gored. In the next decade this problem will only get worse and global warming are making our streams far less productive. In the next decade this problem will expand rather than reduced.)


 The public with a dog in the fight to protect wild salmonids and the habitats that sustain them will grow in size and effectiveness. (In the next decade the public will become more informed and more effective in its commitment to protect wild, native fish. Becoming organized, informed, and taking a stand for nature protection will mean that government will have a harder time retaining status quo policies. The public will act with a growing realization that government does not lead, it follows. Increasing the pressure for conservation is growing with improvements in communications and development of specific missions. As these organizations increase their commitment to protect nature and can show effectiveness, their public support and funding will increase. In the next decade there will be important growth and accomplishments in protection of nature.

Ethics

There have been many posts on this blog about ethics and it seems like I single out the bait guys the most.
In the interest of fairness though, I want to share with you this thread that appeared on the popular Pacific northwest fly fishing site Westfly.net.
I will not provide a link to the site or the post since they seem to think there was nothing wrong with what this fly fisherman was doing.
The fall Chinook runs were terrible this year.
The fish just did not show up in any numbers to warrant a fishery on them in most rivers and most people accepted that and fished for other species.The few that were present were pretty easy to spot and the temptation to see if one of these spent fish would take a fly is there. The unethical fly fisherman in the thread claimed to have been swinging flies for winter steelhead and "accidentally" snagged this spawned out fish, note the fly in the fish's dorsal fin As you can see in the picture this fish is near death with advanced fungus deterioration over it whole body. Although this fish has already spawned it was most likely guarding the redd where the spawning took place. These salmon are quite easy to spot in these conditions and most anglers avoid them.
Judge for yourself what this fly fisherman did and some of you might be familiar with the whole story.
My belief is this fish was intentionally snagged and the angler thought it would be great fun to take pictures of it.
This is the type of ammunition the detractors of our sport are looking for to use against us but apparently the prospect of a large fish on his fly rod proved to be too much for this fly fisherman. If the gear and bait guys point fingers at us after crap like this then we have it coming!
Had this person accidentally snagged this fish he should have broke it off immediately. Why he would take a picture and post it on the internet is beyond me.
He could have received citation for harassing this fish and would have if a game officer would have witnessed this.
So you can see we fly fishermen are not above stupid behavior just because we fish the way we do.
Please respect the resource and leave spawned out salmon to die in peace.

New Years Resolutions

To put it quite simply I don't have any New Years resolutions. Why bother? In the past when I made them I didn't keep them so this year I resolved not to make any.
In actuality I do have an ongoing resolution that I try to keep all year long and it's to do all I can to protect wild salmon, trout and steelhead. I don't always do as well as I could or should but I think I make a decent effort to put my money where my mouth is.
I've gained a few detractors along the way in my efforts. I have a big mouth and don't mind calling a spade a spade and I know a few of these folks keep tabs on this blog. That is fine and I welcome it as a matter of fact.
These "sportsmen" are more concerned with having hero pictures of them holding fish plastered all over the internet. Yes these, as one sycophantic young angler calls them, stud fishermen love nothing better than to talk about what killas they are but when it come right down to actually participating in anything that will help wild fish they are conspicuously absent.
I've long commented on this type of flash in the pan fishermen before and there is not a lot more I can add except to say put away the harmful bait and keep those wild fish in the water! It's more important, you bunch of ego maniacal assholes, to be safe with wild salmon and steelhead than for you to have your picture all over the web.
2010 is a pivotal year for our rivers and the fish that live there. The misguided hatchery processes of this region and killing off what few wild salmon and steelhead populations are left. Steelhead broodstock programs, toxic egg cures and greedy sports anglers are taking their toll along with the myriad of other hurdles wild salmonids face.
Hopefully the continuing revelations about the harmful effects of poor hatchery practices will finally get someones attention.
Hopefully a selective method of harvest on the Columbia river will force the commercial interests to abandon their archaic and wild fish killing gill nets in favor of something that does not kill every thing in it's path.
Hopefully the sports angling groups will work towards the common good of the resource and not just for a larger piece of the salmon pie they believe they deserve and hopefully the fly fishing community will take conservation seriously.
So 2010 can be a year of hope but all user groups are going to have to sacrifice instead of waiting for the other side to give in.
The future of our cold water fisheries depends on it!

Happy New Year

The Smoking Gun?

There isn't much I could add to this except to say this does not surprise me in the least. Our Fish and Wildlife agencies are corrupt in so many ways.
It really is all about saving their own tenure with the state and some will stop at nothing to do so. In the meantime our wild salmonid populations are apparently expendable to meet that end.


WILD FISH EXTINCTIONS CAUSED BY THE LONG-TERM USE OF HATCHERY FISH ZONES TO MANAGE PACIFIC SALMON (ONCORHYNCHUS) IN WASHINGTON AND OREGON

By Sam Wright
 A common management practice in Washington and Oregon since the early 1960s is the planned, deliberate overfishing and eventual extinction of wild Pacific salmon populations in order to harvest comingled populations of salmon that are produced by artificial production (Wright 1993). In Washington, the Final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the Wild Salmonid Policy identified 89 separate naturally spawning Pacific salmon populations that were being subjected to this practice or nearly one-third of all existing Pacific salmon populations in the State (Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) 1997: Table II-1, p. 9).
I was the project leader and lead author for this EIS process and had to work with an Assistant Attorney General (AG) assigned to WDFW. My original language in Table 3 described the process in part as “planned, deliberate overfishing and eventual extinction of wild salmon populations in order to harvest comingled hatchery fish”. The AG stated that “this sounded like something illegal” and changed the language of the Table title to “Current fish management plans and practices overfish 89 wild stocks in order to harvest comingled hatchery fish at rates that are not sustainable by wild populations.” This is an example of one of many ways that have been used to disguise the process.
My initial attempt to stop this practice occurred in the early 1980s when I was administrator of the Habitat Management Division for the Washington Department of Fisheries (WDF). My work included involvement in a wide array of habitat protection, enhancement and mitigation projects. I soon began to wonder if I was knowingly committing illegal acts. Was it illegal to commit public funds to habitat improvement work when I knew that viable adult salmon spawners were never going to be provided to reap projected project benefits? Was it illegal to force a landowner to correct an upstream fish passage problem when I knew that spawners were never going to be provided to utilize habitat above the obstruction? Was it illegal to force a developer to fund a costly mitigation project when I knew that spawners were never going to be provided to justify the expenditure? I was also concerned that the “secret” would eventually be revealed to the public and that this could destroy our future ability to protect salmon habitat.
In 1982, I advised WDF that it was essential to end this practice since it was probably illegal in several different respects. The practice appeared to be illegal under the legislation that created WDF and had never been reviewed under the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA). In addition, all of the more recent hatcheries requiring environmental reviews did not even hint at this practice in their environmental documents. At best, the practice was simply very poor resource stewardship. I then provided a plan to eliminate this practice that was later described in Wright (1993).
The first part of my recommendation was to mark all hatchery Chinook salmon (O. tshawytscha) and all hatchery coho salmon (O. kisutch) by removal of their adipose fins. The basic principle involved was the ability to manage wild and hatchery salmon as “separate species” and the adipose mark enabled this to be done in practice. The second part of my recommendation was that natural spawning escapement objectives needed to be established for all existing naturally spawning salmon populations and that all fisheries would then be managed to achieve these objectives. The third part of my proposal was that existing and planned hatchery programs would be adjusted as necessary to make them compatible with achieving these natural spawning escapement objectives.
The adipose marking proposal was initially rejected by everyone, but gradually came to be accepted and is now widely implemented. The problem is that it was decoupled from both the establishment and management for natural spawning escapement objectives and the need to make hatchery programs compatible. Adipose marking is meaningless by itself when the same high exploitation rates continue to be applied in non-selective fisheries harvesting comingled wild plus hatchery salmon and hatchery programs continue to be incompatible.
My only successful attempt to expose this problem in a formal publication occurred in Wright (1993). The subtitle was “Salmon managers need to abandon the use of hatchery fish management zones.” WDF tried to stop publication but had to settle for a disclaimer stating that “The views in this essay are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of the Washington Department of Fisheries.” There was a great deal of luck involved in the peer review process since two of three reviewers were not from Washington or Oregon. Two subsequent attempts to expose the problem in formal publications failed when the majority of peer reviewers were from Washington and Oregon.
I initially had high hopes for resolution of the problem when Puget Sound Chinook and Lower Columbia River Chinook were listed as Threatened under the Endangered Species Act. Both areas had many Chinook populations on the list of 89 that were being deliberately overfished (WDFW 1997). However, all of these same populations were then assumed to be indistinguishable from hatchery Chinook or “genetically extinct” as wild populations. In Puget Sound, a total of 37 defined Chinook salmon populations were divided into 22 “A” and 15 “B” populations, with the latter group judged to be extinct. The situation in the Lower Columbia River was far worse, with North Lewis River fall Chinook being the only remaining population that was not determined to be extinct.
Unfortunately, my prediction of mass extinctions had been fulfilled. This extinct classification allowed the status quo practices of existing hatchery programs and high exploitation rates to continue for all of these populations. Some even had “escapement goals” identified to complete the public illusion of responsible resource management. Many hatchery Chinook never make it all the way back to existing hatchery traps and end–up spawning naturally. These can then be identified as an escapement goal without compromising the desired hatchery programs and high exploitation rates.
Over the years, there have been many varied attempts to disguise hatchery fish zones such as the “escapement goals” established for 15 Puget Sound “B” group Chinook salmon populations. The only citable reference that precisely identifies salmon populations where there is clear, unambiguous management intent to put adequate numbers of viable natural spawners on the spawning grounds is the Salmon Fishery Management Plan of the Pacific Fishery Management Council (PMFC 2003: Table 3-1,15p.). This confirms the solitary status of North Lewis River fall Chinook and that both the entire Columbia River system and the entire South Puget Sound Region are huge hatchery fish zones for coho salmon. As predicted for wild Chinook salmon, there have also been massive extinctions of wild coho salmon populations.
The common practice of deliberately overfishing naturally spawning salmon populations in order to harvest comingled hatchery fish continues to be alive and well in Washington and Oregon (albeit with some new disguises commonly called “hatchery reform”). The solution is still exactly what it was in 1982. At a minimum, resource managers in Washington and Oregon should at least be honest about what they are doing so that countless millions of dollars will not continue to be spent in hatchery fish zones when the same money could be spent much more productively in wild salmon zones. Hundreds of millions of dollars have already been spent and the management status (wild or hatchery zones) has never been used (as a criteria) to prioritize competing project proposals.

References
PFMC 2003. Fishery management plan for commercial and recreational salmon fishery off the coasts of Washington, Oregon and California as revised through Amendment 14. Pacific Fishery Management Council, Portland, OR.

WDFW 1997. Final environmental impact statement for the Wild Salmonid Policy. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Olympia, WA.

Wright, S. 1993. Fishery management of wild Pacific salmon stocks to prevent extinctions. Fisheries 18(5):3-4.
Author: Sam Wright, 1522 Evanston Ct. NE, Olympia WA 98506 (360-943-4424, sam.wright@att.net)

Happy Holidays from The Quiet Pool

Here is hoping your stocking is filled with new fly rods and reels instead of a lump of coal!

'Tis the Season

No I am not talking about Christmas here, I am talking about fly fishing for winter steelhead.
Yeah I bitch about winter and do it alot but since I do not have the resources to fly to Maui every winter I have come to the realization that I need to make the best of winter.
You would think I would under take a winter distraction that is maybe less masochistic than fly fishing for winter steelhead. I could maybe take up my time having my tongue pieced and then having the stud ripped out by some pissed off bait fisherman. That would probably prove to be less painful than standing waist deep in a forty degree coastal river casting a huge creation of feather and fur to a fish that is about as interested in my offering as a Pacific northwest banana slug is in crossing a salt line.
Take yesterday for instance. I was fishing a particularly treacherous piece of water that my fishing buddy assured me was wade able.
What he didn't tell me was the bank dropped off almost vertically. So in I go and was instantly up to my stomach in frigid water. Of course the shock of this sudden drop off cause me to loose my balance and my sleeve went into the cold water.
The air temperature was only a little warmer than that of the water....we fished only one other hole because I was quite wet.
Sounds like fun huh? Poke me in the eye with a hot poker? Hmmm, let me think about it while I wring out my coat sleeve.
I've done the winter steelhead insanity for over 35 years now but went fly only in just the last 5 years. Fly only means deeper wading and more interaction with the water.
When I gear fished I could stand well up on the bank with hardly ever a need to wade any deeper than my knees. I caught a lot of fish in those days too!
One might ask why in the hell would I torture myself in this way especially for so few fish. I cannot tell you why except to say I just love fly fishing so much that the thought of putting my fly gear away for the winter and picking up a casting or spinning rod was more than I could bear.
I don't need fish to eat and since I rarely bring anything home I've gotten used to not having it and really don't miss it much.
Oh I will certainly kill every hatchery fish I encounter but I usually stay away from areas where there are hatchery fish present. Staying away from areas that hatchery fish frequent will assure me of avoiding my gear fishing brethren and the lower evolved bait chuckers.
The trade off is less fish but it's worth it.
So this winter I will still whine and complain but rest assured this old goat will still be stumbling along a river near you. Look for the old guy with the white beard and corn cob pipe and offer him a cup of hot fortified coffee and perhaps the directions to your can't miss swinging water...the karma earned will pay off in great dividends.

Limp Wrist Fly Chucking Faggots

That is the latest thing that we fly fishermen have been called by the increasingly paranoid bait crowd here in the Pacific northwest.
I thought I would take time to perhaps refute some of that.
If I am limped wristed wouldn't that mess up my casting? I do a fairly good job at single hand casting so the limp wrist insult has no grounds.
I would like to think or at least I hope that I do not "chuck" my flies but I have to admit that there are times on the Deschutes when the wind is raging down the canyon that I may have "chucked" my fly out of defensive necessity. I guess fly chucker could be accurate at times.
Then the faggot part. Do they mean I am a cigarette? Faggot was slang for cigarettes at one time and was also used to describe a bundle of wood used for fuel. I refuse believe that a person would be so ignorant as to use this derogatory description of ones sexual orientation and apply it to fly fishermen...or would they? It's not like I haven't been called this before when I've taken a stand against the abuse of wild salmon and steelhead.
I've been threatened by more than one bait "chucker" and I've found that there is a lot of brave talk on the internet.Since it is so easy to be an anonymous internet warrior but never have to account for such mean spirited slander I mostly ignore this stuff.
All joking aside though it is worrisome that the resistance to conservation of wild salmon and steelhead gets to the point to where this kind of garbage exists. I often tell my detractors that I am pretty easy to find out on the river and I do spend a great deal of time on the north coast which seems to be a breeding ground for anti-conservation sentiment.
So call me anything you want tough guys but you will never be able to call me uninvolved or apathetic. I think being called those names would be the biggest insults of all.

Cured Salmon Eggs are Toxic

So something we have suspected for many years turns out to be true! Sodium Sulfite cured salmon and steelhead eggs kill fish.
When this study was made public a few well known bait guides were quoted as saying

"They should do the same smolt study with twinkies and see how many die"

"I'll quit using cured eggs if you quit using toilet paper"

One unenlightened bait guide brags about how he discards left over baits in the river to "imprint" on the juvenile salmon and steelhead what to look for when they return in a couple of years....sheer brilliance huh?
The fact is these knuckle draggers have never evolved as anglers. They cannot leave their comfort zone of bait use no matter what the consequences.
This study is just another hurdle that wild salmonid must face and so far the professional guides out on the river could not care less.
The article below was taken from Bill Bakke's Home Waters and Wild Fish


CURED SALMON EGG BAIT KILLS JUVENILE SALMON AND STEELHEAD

By Bill Bakke - Native Fish Society

In 2007 Jeff Misler asked the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife to test cured salmon eggs for toxic compounds, for he was concerned juvenile salmonids were being killed by ingesting the bait.
Oregon State University and ODFW researchers conducted the study for ODFW and made the following discovery: Cured salmon eggs killed juvenile salmon and steelhead.
The research discovered that within a 23 day span 30% of the juvenile salmonids were killed. Upon further investigation, they found that eggs cured with sodium sulfite were lethal. It is this chemical that kills the fish.
They also tested the eggs by giving them a soak to see if they were less lethal. They were testing whether fishing softened their impact. Soak times ranged from 30 seconds to 10 minutes, but the results were the same: the fish died.
Salmon eggs are a favored bait used by anglers fishing for salmon and steelhead. Anglers cure their own eggs or buy them, but if sodium sulfite is used in the curing process they are fishing a poisoned bait.
Additional research on nutrient enrichment of salmon and steelhead streams has pointed out the fact that eggs are preferred by juvenile salmonids. Most salmon eggs are available in early winter months when the juvenile fish are seeking food in cold water when other food supplies are less abundant.
Juvenile fish are seeking the fat rich eggs and anglers fishing steelhead and salmon are using cured eggs. The combination is lethal.
ODFW officials said in a news release that “We’ve already talked with several manufactures and we’re encouraged by their commitment to solving this problem.”
However, ODFW researchers said they “…cannot predict what impact, if any, the ingestion of cured eggs by juvenile fish has on the final size of the adult population.”
In the research proposal to investigate the toxic effect of cured salmon eggs on juvenile salmonids, there is evidence of even more mortality than what was found in the OSU research. A 1979 study showed that consumption of borax cured eggs led to decreased growth and an increase in plasma corticosteroids in chinook and rainbow trout juveniles. Furthermore, we recently observed between 50-60% mortality in a preliminary study feeding cured salmon eggs (Clements Pers Obs).
Measuring the impact based on the effect on adult salmon and steelhead production, is like taking pins out of the voodoo doll. They can reason that not all juveniles survive to return as adults, so the loss of a few or even a gob of young fish is, at best, immaterial and mitigates any need to manage the use of eggs as bait.
At a time when most of our wild salmon and steelhead are depleted and designated a threatened species, sensitive species, and candidate species for ESA-listing, one would hope that the management authorities would recognize a problem rather than trying to minimize it.

Shane...the Elitist Wannabe

Yep I confess! You see that gentleman in the tweeds and jaunty hat? That's me...well sort of.
In Jack Ohman's new book "Angler Management" he devotes a chapter to the fly fishing elitist and while I may want to be an elitist my bank account says otherwise.
How do I know I want to be an elitist you might ask? Here are a few examples.
I am self conscious about not owning Simms G-3 breathable waders. Seems ridiculous huh? hey all the good fly guys have Simms. Mike McCune wears Simms and so does Ed Ward and Lani Waller.
I smoke a brier pipe while out on the river and it makes me look the part.
Can't afford a real expensive one though like Bill Bakke smokes.
I try to talk about hatches in the way of someone who knows what the hell he is talking about. Yeah I'll drop the occasional Callibaetis or Hexagenia limbata then step back while the person I am talking to marvels at my expertise which they never do.
I do have a couple of bamboo fly rods to thoroughly impress the salmon fishermen on the coast but it is all for naught and I'll usually get the "Can you throw eggs with that stick har har?"
Kind of tough to impress a guy with an inch of dried salmon egg goo on his fishing rod.
I make every effort to drop names like Haig-Brown or Lee Wulff but so far it hasn't gotten me an invitation to join the elite Deschutes Club and I cannot understand why.
Maybe if I carried around a bottle of 18 year old Macallan that would get some acceptance don't you think?
I don't know if I am making any progress in my pilgrimage to fly fishing elitism. I wasn't invited to contribute a Green Butt Skunk to Joel LaFollette's Dan Callaghan commemorative fly plate. Wonder why he wouldn't want on of my flies but would take one from the likes of Bill McMillan or Frank Moore? Do you think word got out that I shopped at the Dollar Tree and Harbor Freight for fly tying supplies?
I might have to disguise myself when going in those stores because I certainly wouldn't want to screw up my ascension to fly fishing elitist.
I would like to think I am well on my way to becoming the real Henning Hale Orviston of "The River Why" fame. Should I tell anyone that I shop at Cabela's?

How To Win Friends and Influence People on the River

Winter steelhead season is upon us with its cold toes, frozen guides and rude fishermen. I don't think all are deliberately rude but just clueless. Here in the Pacific Northwest we have the "Lords of the River" also known as professional bait guides who think nothing of cutting you off in order to get their "sports" into a fish.
Many of you can no doubt add to the following like compiled by my friend Erik Helm of the Classical Angler


1. If you do get into a run, you are one lucky boy! Under no circumstances should you move. Cast from the same position in all directions. If you wait long enough, a fish might swim through the run and eat your fly or bait/lure.



2. If the approach you are using does not prove effective, under no circumstances change what you are doing. Keep it up and sooner or later you will either catch a steelhead or die, whichever comes first…



3. If someone is in a run, under no circumstances talk to them or look at them. Just proceed below them to their casting distance and low-hole them. They will get the point sooner or later that the entire river belongs to you.



4. If you are fishing with eggs, make absolutely certain to tell everyone how many fish you have caught.



5. If you see someone about to enter an otherwise empty piece of water, run down the bank and jump in the water before they get there. Remember the spoils belong to the bold and greedy.



6. If you are fishing from the bank with spinning gear, make sure that you cut off anybody wading from any good fish holding water.



7. If you are new to fishing with a two-hander and are having trouble casting, just stay in the run and practice your casting without moving. Since you have no chance, neither should anybody else.



8. If you are wading below a nice piece of holding water or a run and want to fish it, do not get out of the water to walk up to the run on the bank or a path. Instead, splash your way stumbling upstream through the heart of the run. This should stir the fish up and put them in a biting mood.

This last one is from yours truly and it goes out to those models of angling etiquette also know as drift boat guides.

9.If you see an angler swinging flies through a run be sure to cut him off and fish his water. Hey he isn't going to catch a damn thing anyway and after all the river belongs to you!

Traditional Speycast

A Fly Fishing Poem

I thought you all might like this poem. I may have posted it before but I like it so much that I'll post it again.
Why does fly fishing inspire poetry like this? Of all the other types of angling there is a romantic quality in casting a fly that cannot be found elsewhere in the fishing pursuits.
Anyway enjoy Mrs. Lamberton's poem...tight lines



Trout Fishing
by
Mrs. Eunice B Lamberton

Give me a rod of the split bamboo,
a rainy day and a fly or two,
a mountain stream where the eddies play,
and mists hang low o'er the winding way,

Give me a haunt by the furling brook,
A hidden spot in a mossy nook,
No sound save hum of the drowsy bee,
or lone bird's tap on the hollow tree.

The world may roll with it's busy throng,
And phantom scenes on it's way along,
It's stocks may rise, or it's stocks may fall,
Ah! What care I for it's baubles all?

I cast my fly o'er the troubled rill,
Luring the beauties by magic skill,
With mind at rest and a heart at ease,
And drink delight at the balmy breeze.

A lusty trout to my glad surprise,
Speckled and bright on the crest arise,
Then splash and plunge in a dazzling whirl,
Hope springs anew as the wavelets curl.

Gracefully swinging from left to right,
Action so gentle- motion so slight,.
Tempting, enticing, on craft intent,
Till yielding tip by the game is bent

Drawing in slowly, then letting go
Under the ripples where mosses grow
Doubting my fortune, lost in a dream,
Blessing the land of forest and stream.

What Is A Steelhead Flyfisher?

Jeff Bright wrote this in the latest edition of "Adipose" the newsletter of Wild Steelhead Coalition

In this age of compromised rivers and diminishing habitat a steelhead flyfisher is not merely an angler who pursues sea-run rainbow trout with a fly, but one also fully committed to the preservation and protection of wild steelhead and their rivers.
This commitment includes a desire to become better educated on issues affecting the health of wild steelhead. It means becoming a citizen and steward of the Pacific Northwest, writing letters to agencies and officials, making your voice heard, speaking for the fish, and contributing money to vital efforts.
It means carefully weighing your consumer and political choices and evaluating the impact they have on the ecology of anadromous rivers --not only locally but regionally as well. More than anything, it means rolling up your sleeves to help, in anyway you can, with the fight to save wild steelhead.

Quite a challenge isn't it? I know I fall well short of what Jeff is talking about and I have no excuse.
How about you? What have you done for wild steelhead or any population of wild salmonids?
Groups like Wild Steelhead Coalition,Native Fish Society or
Trout Unlimited are groups that fight for our wild salmonid heritage. Why not join one of these groups if you care about wild steelhead, salmon or trout. It's money well spent and you will be making a difference and it's a good start towards being a good steward of our wild resource.
Happy Thanksgiving to all!

Johnny We Hardly Knew Ye

Today marks the 46th anniversary of the assassination of President John Fitzgerald Kennedy in Dallas, Texas. I remember the day very well and without a doubt it was one of the most tragic occurrences in the history of this nation and a day I will never forget.
I will always commemorate this day as it was of the most indelible memories of my childhood. I was in the 4th grade and we were getting our weekly Spanish lesson on closed circuit TV. It was 11:15 AM on the west coast when the bulletin broke on the TV. At 11:30 we took our lunch as usual when a teacher announced President Kennedy had died. When I got home from school that gloomy Friday I found my mother weeping in front of the television. My father was as quiet and somber as I have ever seen him that weekend. We sat transfixed in front of the television for the next 4 days and I also watched as the murder of Kennedy's assassin, Lee Harvey Oswald, was broadcast .to the grieving nation. Like I said I will never forget that day as long as I live.
What died that day was more than just a head of state. What died was the hope, promise and potential of dynamic and courageous leadership that we may never see again. We can only speculate about what might have been had President Kennedy lived to serve out his term. I would like to think that we would have achieved the true greatness this country is capable of. We lost our innocence that day and as a nation we suffered a tragedy that is still fresh and still painful to all of us living then.For those of us that remember President Kennedy, he will forever be our handsome young president forever frozen in time at the age of 46 with Jackie in her pink suit with matching pillbox hat......Truly we hardly knew him.

Do Wild Fish Matter?

Ask yourself that and I'd bet you would say "Of course they do!" and I'm sure most are sincere so maybe I'm just preaching to the choir here. If that applies to you then you can skip the rest if you want.
If you are not sure then maybe I can help you to see what I'm getting at here.
First of all if you think that by saving hatcheries, going to fin clippings,working on boat ramps or helping the steelhead broodstock program makes you some kind of conservation hero then think again. In 2002 you helped save the north coast hatcheries by showing up at Tillamook county Fairgrounds or ODFW headquarters and feel pretty good huh? Whether you meant well or not all you accomplished is nailing just another nail into the coffin of wild salmonids. Yes I might be blunt here but you did the wild salmon and steelhead of the Pacific northwest no favor at all. If you clipped fins at some Tillamook county good old boys pet project then shame on you!
There is absolutely no excuse for not being educated about wild fish and their habitat...none!
Dumping hatchery raised salmon and steelhead into the habitat of wild fish is death to those wild fish. It's a proven fact that hatchery plantings damage the delicate balance of wild fish and their environment. Didn't know that huh? Well BS! There is no excuse for not knowing. Perhaps you don't really care? That isn't surprising since after all the state of Oregon owes you fish to harvest don't they?
Feeling a little scorched huh? Hey I warned you didn't I?
Listen folks if we are ever going to get to sustainable numbers of wild fish then this hatchery madness has to end. We cannot continue to harvest wild fish at the rate we are going and think that dumping gazillions of hatchery raised fish into a river to replace will solve the problem because it will not.
Allowing the harvest of wild coastal cutthroat trout and the pitiful numbers of returning fall chinook salmon plus a myriad of other devastating situations facing our wild salmonids. Wild winter run steelhead populations are in a death spiral and ignorance along with greed  is what got them there and unless the public gets wised up about what is at stake then it is a gloomy future.
I'm not saying there has not been progress because there has but we risk throwing every gain we have made by idly standing by and doing nothing. Killing sea lions is not the answer and neither is running the gill nets off the Columbia however getting educated and getting involved is the answer. Think beyond your ego and how many quarts of eggs or pounds of fillets you can put in your freezer.
I apologize if you've been offended by the tone of this post.....wait a minute!!!!! No I do not apologize because if anything I've said here makes any of you uncomfortable in any way then I'm glad because maybe you'll get involved. The old saying that is you are not part of the solution then you are part of the problem, while being a cliche, never rang truer.

Hatcheries and Their Effect on Wild Salmonids

This article is by Bill Bakke of Native Fish Society. It is a lengthy read but worth it.



The following quotes are based on scientific evaluation and most are from peer reviewed scientific papers. The lead author and the date of publication are provided for reference. Hatchery solutions for wild salmonid decline have ignited a debate about their effectiveness and impact on wild, native salmonids. While science has shown that in many cases hatchery programs are in conflict with wild salmonid conservation and recovery, the ongoing problem is that this information is not being effectively applied by the management agencies.
Allendorf et al. 1994: We are not aware of a single empirical example in which (hatchery) supplementation has been successfully used as a temporary strategy to permanently increase abundance of naturally spawning populations of Pacific salmon.
Altukhov et al 1991: Artificial reproduction, commercial fisheries, and transfers result in the impairment of gene diversity in salmon populations, and so cause their biological degradation.
Araki et al. 2008: Captive breeding is used to supplement populations of many species that are declining in the wild. The suitability of and long-term species survival from such programs remain largely untested, however. We measured lifetime reproductive success of the first two generations of steelhead trout that were reared in captivity and bred in the wild after they were released. By reconstructing a three-generation pedigree with microsatellite markers, we show that genetic effects of domestication reduce subsequent reproductive capabilities by 40% per captive-reared generation when fish are moved to natural environments. These results suggest that even a few generations of domestication may have negative effects on natural reproduction in the wild and that the repeated use of captive-reared parents to supplement wild populations should be carefully reconsidered.
Araki et al. 2008: “Our review indicates that salmonids appear to be very susceptible to fitness loss while in captivity. The degree of fitness loss appears to be mitigated to some extent by using local, wild fish for broodstock, but we found little evidence to suggest that it can be avoided altogether. The general finding of low relative fitness of hatchery fish combined with studies that have found broad scale negative associations between the presence of hatchery fish and wild population performance, should give fisheries managers pause as they consider whether to include hatchery production in their conservation toolbox.”

Bachman 1984: Hatchery brown trout fed less, moved more, and expended more energy than wild brown trout in streams.
Bams 1970: Hatchery pink salmon migrated to the ocean one to two weeks earlier than wild pinks.
Berejikian and Ford 2003: Competitive asymmetries between hatchery and natural spawners and possibly their offspring can clearly contribute to the differences in relative fitness. Hatchery fish have lower fitness.
Blouin 2003: Non-local domesticated hatchery summer-run steelhead achieved 17-54% the lifetime fitness of natural native fish.
Blouin 2009: "If anyone ever had any doubts about the genetic differences between hatchery and wild fish, the data are now pretty clear. The effect is so strong that it carries over into the first wild-born generation. Even if fish are born in the wild and survive to reproduce, those adults that had hatchery parents still produce substantially fewer surviving offspring than those with wild parents. That's pretty remarkable."
Blouin 2009: “The implication is that hatchery salmonids – many of which do survive to reproduce in the wild– could be gradually reducing the fitness of the wild populations with which they interbreed. Those hatchery fish provide one more hurdle to overcome in the goal of sustaining wild runs, along with problems caused by dams, loss or degradation of habitat, pollution, overfishing and other causes. Aside from weakening the wild gene pool, the release of captive-bred fish also raises the risk of introducing diseases and increasing competition for limited resources.”
Blouin 2009: There is about a 40% loss in reproductive fitness for each generation spent in a hatchery.
Brannon et al. 1999: (Independent Scientific Advisory Board) : The three recent independent reviews of fish and wildlife recovery efforts in the Columbia River Basin addressed hatcheries. There was consensus among the three panels (National Fish Hatchery Review Panel, National Research Council, Independent Science Group), which underscores the importance of their contributions in revising the scientific foundation for hatchery policy. The ten general conclusions made by the panels are listed below.

1. Hatcheries generally have failed to meet their objectives

2. Hatcheries have imparted adverse effects on natural populations

3. Managers have failed to evaluate hatchery programs

4. Rationale justifying hatchery production was based on untested assumptions.

5. Hatchery supplementation should be linked with habitat improvements

6. Genetic considerations have to be included in hatchery programs.

7. More research and experimental approaches are required.

8. Stock transfers and introductions of non-native species should be discontinued.

9. Artificial production should have a new role in fisheries management.

10. Hatcheries should be used as temporary refuges rather than for long-term production.

Brauner 1994: In freshwater swimming velocity tests, wild coho salmon smolts swam faster than hatchery fish. In seawater hatchery fish performance compared to wild fish was poor. Hatchery fish had more difficulty osmoregulating.
Byrne et al. 1992: Building more hatcheries should cause alarm to biologists concerned with the preservation of native stocks until it is demonstrated that supplementation can be done in a way that does not reduce fitness of the native stock.

California Dept. Fish and Game 2002: The brains of hatchery raised rainbow trout are smaller in 7 out of 8 critical neuroanatomical measures than those of their wild reared counterparts.
Chilcote et al. 1986: Hatchery steelhead are only 38% as successful in producing smolts as wild steelhead.
Chilcote 2002: “…there will be little benefit to bringing some of the wild fish into the hatchery environment if the resulting hatchery smolts will have ocean survival rates that are 1/10 of those for wild smolts….all indications are that hatchery fish, even from wild broodstocks, are not as successful as wild fish in producing viable offspring under natural conditions….”
Chilcote 2003: A naturally spawning population comprised of equal numbers of hatchery and wild fish would produce 63% fewer recruits per spawner than one comprised entirely of wild fish. For natural populations, removal rather than addition of hatchery fish may be the most effective strategy to improve productivity and resilience.
Chilcote 2008: At a recent meeting of lower Columbia River Salmon Recovery Stakeholders, the document , Recovery Strategies to Close the Conservation Gap Methods and Assumptions, hatchery fish impacts are discussed. It says, “…relative population survival rates (recruits produced per spawner) were found to decrease at a rate equal to or greater than the proportion of hatchery fish in the natural spawning population. In other words, a spawning population with 20% hatchery strays (regardless of the type of hatchery program and whether they are integrated or segregated) had the net survival rate (recruits per spawner) that was 20% less than a population comprised entirely of wild fish (0% hatchery strays). Likewise, a population with 40% hatchery strays had a population survival rate that was 40% lower than a population comprised entirely of wild fish.”
Dickson 1982: Juvenile hatchery fish show a behavioral shift in stream feeding position compared to wild fish. Hatchery fish feed nearer the surface. This may expose them to greater predation.
Ersbak et al. 1983: Hatchery trout conditions declined after stocking. Hatchery fish were less flexible in switching to available food in the stream.
Fenderson, 1968: Hatchery fish are more aggressive and dominate wild fish, and hatchery fish have a higher mortality.
Flagg et al., 1999: The reviews conclude that artificial culture environments condition salmonids to respond to food, habitat, conspecifics and predators differently than fish reared in natural environments. It is now recognized that artificial rearing conditions can produce fish distinctly different from wild cohorts in behavior, morphology, and physiology
Fleming, et al., 1993: The divergence of hatchery fish in traits important for reproductive success has raised concerns. This study shows that hatchery coho salmon males are competitively inferior to wild fish, and attained only 62% of the breeding success of wild males. Hatchery females had more difficulty in spawning than wild fish and hatchery fish had only 82% of the breeding success of wild fish. These results indicate hatchery fish may pose an ecological and genetic threat to wild fish.
Fleming et al. 1994: Results of this study imply that hatchery fish have restricted abilities to rehabilitate wild populations, and may pose ecological and genetic threats to the conservation of wild populations.
Fleming et al. 1997: Reproductive success defined in the study as the ability to produce viable eyed embryos did not differ between hatchery and natural females. Hatchery males, however, achieved only 51% the estimated relative reproductive success of natural males under conditions of mutual competition. Hatchery males were less able to monopolize access to spawning females and suffered more severe wounding and greater mortality than natural males.
Flick, et al. 1964: Wild brook trout had higher summer and winter survival than hatchery fish.
Ford, 2002: Substantial phenotypic changes and fitness reductions can occur even if a large fraction of the captive broodstock is brought in from the wild every generation. This suggests that regularly bringing wild-origin broodstock into captive populations cannot be relied upon to eliminate the effects of inadvertent domestication selection.
Gudjonsson and Scarnecchia 2009: “In some rivers the salmon stocks have been enhanced by the release of smolts produced by using local brood stock. Smolts reared in hatcheries and released in rivers frequently had 50% lower return rates than wild smolts.
Hilborn 1992: Pacific salmon hatcheries have failed to deliver expected benefits and they pose the greatest single threat to the long-term maintenance of salmonids.
Hooton 2009: “Most hatchery programs produce steelhead that reflect only a small fraction of the natural life history variability inherent within and between wild populations. The numbers of steelhead that can result from carefully administered hatchery programs may be impressive, but those fish represent only a narrow segment of the diversity and adaptability of wild fish. Such products cannot be relied on to sustain natural populations over the long term.”
Hulett et al. 1994: Hatchery winter steelhead were about one-half as effective as wild winter-run steelhead in naturally producing smolt offspring. Hatchery winter steelhead were about one sixth as effective as wild winter steelhead in naturally produced adult offspring.
IEAB 2002: Cost to catch for hatchery fish:
Hatchery Species Produced Cost of a Salmon that is caught
Leavenworth spring chinook $4,800
Entiat spring chinook $68,031 (Highest $891,000)
Winthrop spring chinook $23,068
Priest Rapids fall chinook $12.00 (Highest - $293)
Irrigon summer steelhead $453
Spring Cr. fall chinook $237 (range 14.53 - $460)
Clatsop coho $124
Spring chinook $233
Fall chinook $65
Nez Perce fall and spring chinook $3,700
McCall spring chinook $786 (range $522 to $1,051)

The benefit of the fishery is $45 to $77 per fish for the commercial fishery and $60 per fish for the sport fishery.
Jonsson et al. 1993: Differences were evident for hatchery Atlantic salmon relative to wild salmon, with common genetic backgrounds, in breeding success after a single generation in the hatchery. Hatchery females averaged about 80% the breeding success of wild females. Hatchery males had significantly reduced breeding success, averaging about 65% of the success of wild males.
Kincaid, 1994: Atlantic salmon held in hatcheries for four generations produced juveniles that had different performance characteristics than progeny from wild parents.
Knudson et al. 2006. “Perhaps the most important conclusion of our study is that even a hatchery program designed to minimize differences between hatchery and wild fish did not produce fish that were identical to wild fish.”
Kostow 2003 : Our data support a conclusion that hatchery summer steelhead adults and their offspring contribute to wild steelhead population declines through competition for spawning and rearing habitats.
Kostow 2004: “In conclusion, this study demonstrated large average phenotype and survival differences between hatchery-produced and naturally produced fish from the same parent gene pool. These results indicate that a different selection regime was affecting each of the groups. The processes indicated by these results can be expected to lead to eventual genetic divergence between the new hatchery stock and its wild source population, thus limiting the usefulness of the stock for conservation purposes to only the first few generations.
Leider, et. al., 1990: The mean percentage of offspring from naturally spawning hatchery steelhead decreased at successive life history stages, compared to wild steelhead, from a potential of 85-87% at the egg stage to 42% at the adult stage. Reproductive success of naturally spawning hatchery steelhead compared to wild steelhead decreases from 75-78% at the subyearling stage to 10.8-12.9% at the adult stage.
Levings, et al., 1986: Hatchery chinook used the estuary a shorter period of time than wild chinook. The greatest overlap between hatchery and wild chinook in the estuary is in the transition zone where greater competition could occur.
Mason, et al., 1997: Hatchery x wild and wild x wild crosses had higher survival in the natural stream compared to hatchery x hatchery crosses.
McClure : “Continued interbreeding with hatchery-origin fish of lower fitness can lower the fitness of the wild population. Generally, large, long-term hatchery programs that dominate production of a population is a high risk factor for certain viability criteria and can lead to increased risk for the population. The populations meeting ‘high viability’ criteria will necessarily be large and spatially complex. In order to meet these criteria (spatial structure and diversity) there should be little or no introgression between hatchery fish and the wild component of the population. Populations supported by hatchery supplementation for more than three generations do not in most cases meet ICTRT viability criteria at the population level.”
McLean et al. 1997: Hatchery steelhead spawning in the wild had markedly lower reproductive success than native wild steelhead. Wild females that spawned in 1996 produced 9 times as many adult offspring per capita as did hatchery females that spawned in the wild. Wild females that spawned in 1997 produced 42 times as many adult offspring as hatchery females. The wild steelhead population more than met replacement requirements (approximately 3.7 – 6.7 adult offspring were produced per female), but the hatchery steelhead were far below replacement (<0.5>
Meffe 1992: Countless salmon stocks have declined precipitously over the last century as a result of overfishing and widespread habitat destruction. A central feature of recovery efforts has been to build many hatcheries to produce large quantities of fish to restock streams. This approach addresses the symptoms but not the causes of the declines.
Miller, 1953: Hatchery cutthroat trout had lower survival compared to wild fish due to absence of natural selection at early life stages.
Miller et al. 1990: Over 300 (hatchery) supplementation projects were reviewed and the authors found: 1) examples of success at rebuilding self-sustaining anadromous fish runs with hatchery fish are scarce (22 out of 316 projects reviewed), 2) success was primarily from providing fish for harvest, and 3) adverse impacts to wild stocks have been shown or postulated for every type of hatchery fish introduction to rebuild runs.
Moran and Waples 2007: “…we show some compelling differences in reproductive success of hatchery and wild fish. Naturally spawning hatchery fish are less than half as productive as wild fish.”
Mullan, et al., 1992: Hatchery spring chinook produced more precocious males than wild chinook. This could be one factor in the low survival of hatchery fish.
Naish et al. 2008: If one concern has been identified, it is that many hatchery programmes continue to be operated with few objectives, and with a poor understanding of the magnitude and importance of the impacts of genetic effects of hatchery releases and the role of this information in informing remedial actions.

A rapidly growing body of literature points towards detrimental behavioral interactions between hatchery and wild fish. More is known about these interactions in freshwater rearing habitats than in estuarine and marine environments. There is also, however, a paucity of information on whether risk avoidance measures are effective at reducing competition and predation and, as far as we know, little attention is directed towards carrying capacity when the size of release is considered.
Nickelson 1986: Hatchery coho salmon have lower survival than wild coho relative to poor ocean productivity cycles. Hatchery coho juveniles are more abundant after stocking in streams but the result is fewer adult returns and fewer juvenile coho salmon in the next generation than in streams that were not stocked.
Nickelson 2003: To aid in the recovery of depressed wild salmon populations, the operation of hatcheries must be changed to reduce interactions of juvenile hatchery fish with wild fish.
Perry, et al. 1993: Idaho has been trying to unravel the secrets of hatchery and wild salmon interactions in nature. Since hatchery salmon do not survive as well as wild salmon, it is important to fix this problem. It is possible that a hatchery supplementation program may inadvertently replace the target natural population with one having lower survival and reproductive potential.
Ratliff, 1981: Wild fall chinook were more resistant to C. shasta than were hatchery chinook.
Reisenbichler, et al. 1977: His research shows that hatchery x hatchery crosses of steelhead fry survival was lower than for wild x wild crosses and wild x hatchery crosses in streams. Likewise he found that hatchery x hatchery crosses survived better in the hatchery environment. The hatchery fish were derived from local wild steelhead and had changed in performance in two generations of hatchery rearing. Conclusion: differences in survival suggested that the short-term effect of hatchery adults spawning in the wild is the production of fewer smolts and ultimately, fewer returning adults than are produced from the same number of wild steelhead spawners.
Reisenbichler 1986: Most (hatchery fish) outplanting programs have been unsuccessful. Rigorous planning, evaluation, and investigation are required to increase the likelihood of success and the ability to promptly discern failure.
Reisenbichler 1994: Gene flow from hatchery fish also is deleterious because hatchery populations genetically adapt to the unnatural conditions of the hatchery environment at the expense of adaptedness for living in natural streams. This domestication is significant even in the first generation of hatchery rearing.
Reisenbichler 1996: Available data suggest progressively declining fitness for natural rearing with increasing generations in the hatchery. The reduction in survival from egg to adult may be about 25% after one generation in the hatchery and 85% after six generations. Reduction in survival from yearling to adult may be about 15% after one generation in the hatchery and 67% after many generations.
RIST 2009: “Most information available indicates that artificially-propagated fish do have ecological impacts on wild salmonid populations under most conditions (e.g. a 50% reduction in productivity for steelhead in an Oregon population). To the degree that the trait distributions seen in wild salmon populations are adaptations to their environments, selection imposed by the hatchery environment could result in reduced fitness of hatchery fish in the wild.”
Shrimpton, et al., 1994: Juvenile hatchery coho showed a reduced tolerance to salt water compared to wild coho.
Slaney, et al., 1993: Hatchery adult steelhead strayed more than wild steelhead
Sosiak, et al., 1979: As juveniles, hatchery fish had less stomach fullness and fed on fewer taxa than wild fish. This was determined after hatchery fish were in streams from one to three months.
Steward et al. 1990: Authors reviewed 606 hatchery supplementation studies and found that few directly assessed the effects on natural stocks. Genetic and ecological effects and changes in productivity of the native stocks that can result remain largely unmeasured. However, the general failure of supplementation to achieve management objectives is evident from the continued decline of wild stocks.
Swain, et al. 1991: Hatchery coho salmon diverged from the wild fish in fin size and body dimensions. These were considered adaptations to the hatchery environment.
Taylor, 1986: Hatchery coho salmon diverged in body structure and variation from that of the wild coho.
Vincent 1987: Hatchery stocking ended in a Montana stream and wild trout more than doubled (160%) and the wild trout biomass increased by 10 times.
Waples 1991: Genetic interactions between hatchery and wild salmonids will increase as hatchery supplementation becomes a more dominate form of hatchery management.
Waples 1994: Hatchery captive brood stocks may shift genetic structure in natural populations.
Wohlfarth 1986: Stocking with hatchery stocks cannot replace wild productivity because hatchery fish are selected for adaptation to the hatchery environment and do not perform well in the natural environment.
Wood, et al., 1960: Hatchery coho salmon 14 months after release into a stream did not reach the body composition of the wild salmon in time for downstream migration