ODFW Increasing Smolt Releases At Young's Bay To Enhance Select Area Fisheries

"10 fold increase in survival"


Man... that biologist must be the left hand of God.

Wouldn't a substantial increase, 10 fold or not..., benefit he B10 and ocean fisheries? Doesn't this at least mean some reduction in nets on the mainstem?

I guess that would increase mortality rates for upriver fishing, but does that include any overall reduction (savings, only if it's really near zero) of impacts due to the Young's Bay SAFE practices?

It's hard to argue with a "better use" of hatchery efforts, even if it doesn't directly benefit recreational fishing.

Hairlipangler wrote:Wouldn't a substantial increase, 10 fold or not..., benefit he B10 and ocean fisheries?
It's hard to argue with a "better use" of hatchery efforts, even if it doesn't directly benefit recreational fishing.

Hard?

Did you just skip over the part that says...

The SAFE project is an experimental salmon stocking program funded primarily by the Bonneville Power Administration

Now why do you suppose that BPA would found this kind of a project? Surly it wouldn't be to save them (BPA) from fixing the real problems with there dams and passage issues . This will be another one of those CCA's claimed win-wins that they will try to claim....but only if it works!

Hairlipangler wrote:

It's hard to argue with a "better use" of hatchery efforts, even if it doesn't directly benefit recreational fishing.

to me this looks like a way for the non-treaty gillnetters to make up the amount of spring chinook that they will lose in the lower main stem harvest because of the tribes, its pretty smart realy.

Bob you can't go around saying "something is bad just because the BPA is funding it". I can't anyways... I don't trust the BPA either, but unless you're willing to explain with "facts" why you think the BPA's funded plan is bullshit, who's going to listen?

Hairlipangler wrote:Bob you can't go around saying "something is bad just because the BPA is funding it". I can't anyways... I don't trust the BPA either, but unless you're willing to explain with "facts" why you think the BPA's funded plan is bullshit, who's going to listen?

Oh yes I can! When I was in the FOC, they also got funded by them (BPA). I KNOW how that process works! So don't tell me that I have to "explain" the facts!

The fact is that ....I been there and I done it! And yes, that is a FACT!

Well you haven't proven anything to anyone yet, so this is me not listening.......

Well....

What do you consider as being "proof" Have you ever been supported or funded by BPA Hairlip......say what?....I can't hear ya!

If you have NO experences with them (which you don't) you couldn't know jack shit about them or how they even work!

Oh, I forgot that you did once stay at a Hollday Hotel That should of made ya an expert on this subject..right?

Hairlipangler wrote:

so this is me not listening.......

yep.....

Hairlipangler wrote:Wouldn't a substantial increase, 10 fold or not..., benefit he B10 and ocean fisheries? Doesn't this at least mean some reduction in nets on the mainstem?

I guess that would increase mortality rates for upriver fishing, but does that include any overall reduction (savings, only if it's really near zero) of impacts due to the Young's Bay SAFE practices?

It's hard to argue with a "better use" of hatchery efforts, even if it doesn't directly benefit recreational fishing.

We're talking springers here so B10 isn't related.

A 10 fold increase in survival would be monumental.

Example...

1.5 million smolts release from YB netpens
long term smolt-to-adult conversion average 1%
Total adult production = 15,000
About 15% get bushwhacked in the ocean so 12,750 hit the CR

1.5 million smolts
Smolt-to-adult conversion 10%
Adult production = 150,000
15% taken in the ocean so 127,500 hit the CR


But guess what? The Select Area net pens have been in operation for almost 30 years and over that 30 year period they have demonstrated no better or worse smolt-to-adult survival rates than other hatcheries in the LCR that make Willamette stock spring Chinook.


What do you think will be changed to make 15K adults become 150K?

Answer... nothing. There isn't going to be a 10 fold increase in survival. The people writing these press releases don't know what a smolt-to-adult survival rate is. Many would look in a fish hold and ask "what are the shiny silver ones".

Wow, 4:42 am, somebody gets up earlier than me. Thanks LOF.

Hairlipangler wrote:Wow, 4:42 am, somebody gets up earlier than me. Thanks LOF.

My schedule does tend to flex.


I have discovered a caveat to this 10 fold increase in survival thing...

The press release states the transfer is scheduled to be fish slated for release this spring. That fact indicates smolt. Spring Chinook rear in freshwater for just under two years. Brood Year 2000 springers would have been released as smolts in the spring of 2002 for example.

But the Clack and the McKenzie hatchery facilities also release a fair amount of pre smolts. A pre smolt release from Brood Year 2000 puts the date in the late summer or fall of 2001.

Now what does everyone know about hatchery power? You don't release hatchery production juveniles at early life stages. Hatchery power resides in the smolt life stage.

Many of these early life stage groups have been coded wire tagged and the results are dismal. Clack and McKenzie spring Chinook juviniles pre smolt release tag groups have an average survival rate of 0.1%. The smolt release survival is 1%.

So if they take those early life stage release groups out to the smolt life stage (doesn't matter if they release them local or transfer to Youngs Bay) a ten fold increase in survival is a near lock.

But this isn't a function of the release area.

It is 100% the funtion of release life stage!

Linked Overhead Fire wrote:

So if they take those early life stage release groups out to the smolt life stage (doesn't matter if they release them local or transfer to Youngs Bay) a ten fold increase in survival is a near lock.

why dont they take all hatchery fish out to the smolt life stage ??

Could be a cap on total smolts released by NOAA. Could be lack of rearing capacity. Maybe they lost water rights. Could be the public doesn't understand how poor the conversion to the adult life stage is and doesn't demand them advanced all the way.

Look at how many people are behind the GL/FF hatchboxes.