it`s harvest, harvest, harvest

boater wrote:

i think to that any action that is taken can not impede recovery, how can the esa people look at the grays river hsrg recommendation and not say it impedes recovery ?, there is alot of science that says hatchery fish harm wild fish but they are putting in hatchery fish, where is the science that says what they are doing will work, where are other examples of this working ?, what a fukin joke this is.

Sometime in the 1990s NOAA did some sort of precursor to the HSRG. They looked at hundreds of artificial prodction programs around the PNW and came to the conclusion that you could use two hands to enumerate the programs that showed even the most modest hint of increasing natural productivty.

I can't point to the alleles. I can't point out the cistrons. But the world is repleate with examples of the unintended consequences of selective breeding.

Mendel pointed to it first.

Thank you LOF. I have to wonder...... does a destiny of continued dependence on the very thing causing the decline in productivity qualify as a viable plan for recovery? I mean, specifically productivity, it's the primary factor responsible for putting the stock in jeopardy, and the most critical function of recovery efforts. So the answer is to continue supplementation? There's real science that says that works? Where? Like boater said, I bet it ain't there, not really. Must be an impressive bump on the back of somebody's neck to have acquired so much corruptive influence.

Somewhere there has to be a list of requirements for ESA impacted plans for recovery. I'd throw my momma in the river to see it.

Hey Todd, what's the chance someone could file an injunction to stop the Gray's River plan? If the body of evidence supports the opposite of the science used in this plan, I'd think just about anybody could make a stink and hang this plan up.

The damn plan states right in the current population status and goals section, " Viability: Current Viability Rating: Low+, with a goal of High." WTF!!

Now I know that is in reference to status, but I think you could make the argument it applies to "the viability of this plan " as well. What a joke.

on one hand they say,

Based on the productivity and capacity assumption above, the projected average natural-origin escapement is approximately 50 fish annually. The average harvest contribution is estimated to be approximately 50 fish annually

then they say,

Effect on Population of Removing Hatchery
The No Hatchery scenario is intended to look at the potential of the natural population absent all hatchery effects with projected improved fish passage survival in the Snake and Columbia mainstem (FCRPS Biological Opinion May 5, 2008).
Our analysis estimated adjusted productivity (with harvest and fitness factor effects from AHA) would increase from 0.9 to 1.8. Average abundance of natural-origin spawners (NOS) would increase from 116 to 164. Harvest contribution of the natural and hatchery populations would go from 117 to 164.

what am i missreading ??, is the population 50 or 116 ?

Hairlipangler wrote:Thank you LOF. I have to wonder...... does a destiny of continued dependence on the very thing causing the decline in productivity qualify as a viable plan for recovery? I mean, specifically productivity, it's the primary factor responsible for putting the stock in jeopardy, and the most critical function of recovery efforts. So the answer is to continue supplementation? There's real science that says that works? Where? Like boater said, I bet it ain't there, not really. Must be an impressive bump on the back of somebody's neck to have acquired so much corruptive influence.

Somewhere there has to be a list of requirements for ESA impacted plans for recovery. I'd throw my momma in the river to see it.

One could look at it from your angle HLA. The ESA, however, doesn’t. The end product of recovery must be natural production standing on its own merit. Standing alone without the crutch of artificial propagation.

So far ESA recovery doesn’t mean the ability to fuel fisheries. It simply means getting natural spawn/natural origin stocks to a simple replacement level productivity. This is what Redden is doing with the BioOp remands. He's claiming the BioOps won’t facilitate that simple replacement level adult production. NOAA is claiming their protective actions will do this.

I would argue with this very definition of recovery. Then again... I’m not the ESA. Like DNA the ESA has a will all its own.

And i’m just shovelin’ coal.

boater wrote:on one hand they say,

Based on the productivity and capacity assumption above, the projected average natural-origin escapement is approximately 50 fish annually. The average harvest contribution is estimated to be approximately 50 fish annually

then they say,

Effect on Population of Removing Hatchery
The No Hatchery scenario is intended to look at the potential of the natural population absent all hatchery effects with projected improved fish passage survival in the Snake and Columbia mainstem (FCRPS Biological Opinion May 5, 2008).
Our analysis estimated adjusted productivity (with harvest and fitness factor effects from AHA) would increase from 0.9 to 1.8. Average abundance of natural-origin spawners (NOS) would increase from 116 to 164. Harvest contribution of the natural and hatchery populations would go from 117 to 164.

what am i missreading ??, is the population 50 or 116 ?

This is confusing.

It could mean that prehavest adult recruits would move to 164.

I'm not sure.

Linked Overhead Fire wrote:

This is confusing.

i think so to, ive read it atleast 20 times lol, on the chart at the bottom of the grays river hsrg report it gives the adjusted productivity, current is 0.9, with no hatchery it goes up to 1.8 and if they implement the hsrg`s solution it goes up to 2.5 and could go to 2.8 with improved habitat, the 2.5 includes 2 percent of hatchery spawners and the 2.8 includes 1 percent, but since both the 2.5 and 2.8 have surplus hatchery fish they have to be including the hatchery productivity rate to get productivity to 2.5 and 2.8, they are doing exactly what they know will not work and thats pumping the nos with hos, i a`m officialy saying that this population will never recover

boater wrote: i a`m officialy saying that this population will never recover

This population had the kiss of death applied to it 60 years ago with its wholesale conversion to an artificial production population.

That is my official position.

But I'm not the ESA. The ESA will find its own path. Irrespective of the fisheries which depend upon it.

The HSRG is like "gospel in the air". The post-modern Prometheus. Ad-clips are its eulogy. We are all its congregation.

Its children.