it`s harvest, harvest, harvest

by boater on 15th September 2009, 6:04 pm

by Linked Overhead Fire on 15th September 2009, 6:42 pm

He wanted to write it...

He really wanted to write it...

He wanted to write buffalo...

He just didn't write it. Instead he chose "market hunting".

:12:

GL does have one thing correct, as much as I find it hard to fathom, ancient wild salmon populations had superior smolt-to-adult survival rates. Chilcote showed the wild Clackamas coho stock has a 10 fold avantage over their hatchery brethren relative to smolt-to-adult conversions.

There just aren't hardly any of those ancient wild stocks left anymore. Most natural origin coho production in the CR basin is being driven by adult hatchery production individuals spawning naturally (and the majority of high-finners you and I must release are actually no ad-clip hatchery origin adults released at the Klickitat, Leavenworth, Winthrop and Umatilla sites with other minor no ad-clip coho releases scattered around above Bonneville). In aggregate hatchery production adults spawning naturally amounts to something but from a discrete population unit viewpoint it doesn't mean squat.

Pull the hatchery production crutch out from underneath them and they'll vanish like Grays River tules.

by Hairlipangler on 16th September 2009, 7:11 am

Ten years ago, the prevailing opinion among fishermen was hatchery fish have no affect on wild runs, because their so inferior they can't possibly spawn any more than a generation, the hatchery lineage will be weeded out by natural selection, they are no threat to wild populations.

Now that perspective looks to be in error, and the wild productivity decline is directly related to hatchery introgression. So much so, and to the extent that, the wild stocks are now dependent on continued supplementation. We also have to deal with evidence that the "hardy" NOS fish no longer exists, it's been reduced to a mixed genetic bag of inferior performing runts.

If removing the brats will kill off the NOS, and if the HSRG's proposals for protracted native brood supplementation isn't a solution, that leaves what? Is lowering the exploitation rate going to help? What about decreasing it even more than 6%-8% What if we got it down to 6%-8%? What if we drastically reduced exploitation, would that work to restore productivity in wild NOS's?

Because that's really the crux of GL's point about harvest. And I agree the way we do it isn't sustainable. Obviously if we don't cut hatchery production, lacking the selective harvest methods to do so, we cant remove the hatchery fish from the beds if we lower exploitation. Will reducing harvest/exploitation do anything on it's own? Doesn't it have to be done in proportion to each other? Is exploitation and production like the correlation between temperature and pressure? Does it have to be a fixed level of production based off of what we can harvest? And can that level if it exists ever increase until we can harvest more selectively?

by boater on 21st September 2009, 3:50 pm

hairlip, i think it would be interesting to find out what science the hsrg is using in determining that hatchery fish spawning in the wild is a bad thing, i realy dont think that they could have "made" the science that proves that point in the amount of time that it took them to write recommendations for every hatchery out there, do you ??

by Hairlipangler on 21st September 2009, 4:49 pm

Do we really need to know the exact percentage of decline for every NOS as a result of hatchery introgression? Once we acknowledge it does affect wild productivity, might be wasteful to calculate the percentage in every run. If the real knowledge here is don't let brats spawn with wild fish, then the theory should apply to all circumstances, right? Maybe not. They also recommend introgression/supplementation for recovery. That should probably be a red flag right there for the time it took to show both, or either exist for real.

A better question for LOF. But he's probably out snaggin fish, lookin for blondes........

by boater on 21st September 2009, 9:01 pm

Hairlipangler wrote:

If the real knowledge here is don't let brats spawn with wild fish, then the theory should apply to all circumstances, right? Maybe not. They also recommend introgression/supplementation for recovery.

what hsrg plan have you read where they recommend introgression/supplementation for recovery have they set a time frame to pull out the introgression/supplementation and let the wild fish exist on there own ?, none of them ?

by Hairlipangler on 22nd September 2009, 7:51 am

The Grays River HSRG plan wrote:2.1 Current Population Status and Goals

 ESA Status: This population is listed as threatened and is part of the Lower Columbia Chinook ESU.

 Population Description: Two populations in the coast portion of the ESU, the Grays River and Elochoman/Skamokawa populations, have been designated as Primary populations with high viability goals (LCSR&SP 2004). The historical Grays River population was likely average in abundance for coastal tule fall Chinook populations. There was a hatchery fall Chinook program in the basin for almost 40 years, but it was recently eliminated. Current returns of naturally produced Chinook are among the lowest in the ESU.

 Current Viability Rating: Low+, with a goal of High.

 Recovery Goal for Abundance: 1,400.

 Productivity Improvement Expectation: Unknown.

 Habitat Productivity and Capacity: Productivity 3.0; Capacity 300. The HSRG assigned a default value for an estimate of the current habitat for the Grays fall Chinook, since no other estimate of productivity and capacity were available.

 Populations Affected by this Hatchery Population Include: None.

I kinda skipped over this originally. They're really not saying much here, it's wide open for manipulation. When so little data is available, I'd think it'd give managers carte blanch to say whatever they choose to in conclusion. How can you adequately determine change when you have nothing to reference to? Pointing this out because.....

Grays River HSRG plan wrote:3 HSRG Review

The HSRG has developed guidelines for minimal conditions that must be met for each type of program as a function of the biological significance of the natural populations they affect. For populations of the highest biological significance, referred to as Primary, the proportion of effective hatchery-origin spawners (pHOS) should be less than 5% of the naturally spawning population, unless the hatchery population is integrated with the natural population. For integrated populations, the proportion of natural-origin adults in the broodstock should exceed pHOS by at least a factor of two, corresponding to a proportionate natural influence (PNI) value of 0.67 or greater. For Contributing populations, the corresponding guidelines are: pHOS less than 10% or PNI greater than 0.5. It is important to note that these represent minimal conditions, not targets. For example, the potential for fitness loss when effective pHOS is 5% is significantly greater than it would be at 3%. For Stabilizing populations, we assume the current pHOS or PNI would be maintained.

The HSRG analyzed the current condition and a range of hatchery management options for this population, including the effect of removing all hatchery influence, and arrived at one or more proposed solutions intended to address the manager’s goals, consistent with the HSRG guidelines for Primary, Contributing, and Stabilizing populations. The solution included in the cumulative analysis is the last option described in the Observations and Recommendations box below.

In order to highlight the importance of the environmental context, two habitat scenarios were considered: current conditions and a hypothetical 10% habitat quality improvement.

See HSRG Observations and Recommendations in the box below for more information.

Looks like it never ends boater. "Maintained" is not "terminated, reduced, or eliminated" I guess they could stop hatchery supplementation if the run size reaches the projected goal of 1400 fish, and remove the weirs so adjacent stray could take the place of hatchery production, possibly staying within the desired pNOS, and PNI?

But we both know what will likely happen. Supplementation will continue at maxed amounts to hide the fact productivity isn't increasing, data will be difficult to acquire so a number will be assigned a default value. By the time the sham is exposed, the incorrectly reported results of this experiment will have already influenced recovery strategies on the other ESU's, further jeopardizing their stability. At best, the results will be inconclusive. Just a guess, but I bet I'm not far off.

by boater on 22nd September 2009, 9:03 am

hairlip, you should read this,

http://www.fishlib.org/library/Documents/Subbasin_Plans/Columbia_River_Estuary/Grays/Grays90.pdf

they were actualy trying to drive natural production with hatchery fish, then, they close the hatchery and the natural population falls on its face, now according to the hsrg they are going to prop the population back up with i think 94,000 uniquely tagged fish to sustain the population until natural productivity and abundance has improved to sustain the population, they have to already know this wont work because they already tried it, if you ask me the only chance this population has is to not put any hatchery fish in the system and see what happens

by Hairlipangler on 22nd September 2009, 12:16 pm

boater wrote: if you ask me the only chance this population has is to not put any hatchery fish in the system and see what happens

Once the productivity level gets this low, with returns this scarce, they're done. But, nobody wants to come out and say it. I don't see where leaving them alone will help, they're toast. Ocean and mainstem fisheries will continue to harvest what's left. If by some miriacle they're not already toast, they will be after another round of supplementation.

by boater on 22nd September 2009, 12:49 pm

Hairlipangler wrote:

If by some miriacle they're not already toast, they will be after another round of supplementation.

thats true but what they are doing must somehow satisfy esa regulations in conserving the fish even though the remaining gene pool will be in a place where it`s highly unlikely to ever not need supplementation to survive.

by Hairlipangler on 22nd September 2009, 1:21 pm

I agree, they will always need supplementation to survive. Does that satisfy ESA regulations? I don't know. Would taking the entire run and making it hatchery broodstock satisfy the ESA regulations?

by Linked Overhead Fire on 22nd September 2009, 3:19 pm

Hairlipangler wrote:I agree, they will always need supplementation to survive. Does that satisfy ESA regulations? I don't know. Would taking the entire run and making it hatchery broodstock satisfy the ESA regulations?

The ESA has one direct goal. It is the opposite of supplementation/hatchery/artificial production.

Listed stocks must be hands free before there is a chance at a declaration of success/recovery.

by Hairlipangler on 22nd September 2009, 6:12 pm

Thanks LOF. A declaration of success/recovery seems like a pipe dream from here. Once listed, are there any requirements for recovery programs/proposals, like eventually recovering them to the hands free status? How can a plan to recover listed stocks not have a chance at hands free status from the plan's origin? It's my understanding the ESA requirements lack the teeth to require actual hands free recovery(delisting), only requiring what amounts to an attempt to recover.

by boater on 22nd September 2009, 7:55 pm

Hairlipangler wrote:

It's my understanding the ESA requirements lack the teeth to require actual hands free recovery(delisting), only requiring what amounts to an attempt to recover.

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.

by Linked Overhead Fire on 23rd September 2009, 4:23 pm

Hairlipangler wrote:Thanks LOF. A declaration of success/recovery seems like a pipe dream from here. Once listed, are there any requirements for recovery programs/proposals, like eventually recovering them to the hands free status? How can a plan to recover listed stocks not have a chance at hands free status from the plan's origin? It's my understanding the ESA requirements lack the teeth to require actual hands free recovery(delisting), only requiring what amounts to an attempt to recover.

It doesn't mean they don't exist but I haven't seen them. From what I can put together the ESA is aimed at moving the negative trend line of natural popualtions to a stabilized trend line. This would mean a long term simple replacement level productivity or just slightly higher.

Productivity that can fuel the fires of harvest. Nope.

"How can a plan to recover listed stocks not have a chance at hands free status from the plan's origin?"

Seems crazy. I guess different people can have different ideas and definitions of recovery. To me it seems intuitive that recovery means long term population productivity to match pre-1840.

it`s harvest, harvest, harvest

it`s harvest, harvest, harvest

Re: it`s harvest, harvest, harvest

Re: it`s harvest, harvest, harvest

Re: it`s harvest, harvest, harvest

Re: it`s harvest, harvest, harvest

Re: it`s harvest, harvest, harvest

Re: it`s harvest, harvest, harvest

Re: it`s harvest, harvest, harvest

Re: it`s harvest, harvest, harvest

Re: it`s harvest, harvest, harvest

Re: it`s harvest, harvest, harvest

Re: it`s harvest, harvest, harvest

Re: it`s harvest, harvest, harvest

Re: it`s harvest, harvest, harvest

Re: it`s harvest, harvest, harvest