The Outdoor Line Forum

Here is a link to the Warheit genetic study that shows genetically what the impact of 60+ years Chambers Creek releases.
http://wdfw.wa.gov/conservation/fisheri ... 071315.pdf

Bottom line: The Chambers program may be the most scientifically sound program the WDFW has ever produced.... WHY?

· +Low potential for W vs. H interactions

· +2-4 week downstream migration has little to no impact on resident wild steelhead

· +Less than 6% integration of H v W in all programs studied (even lower in popular fisheries)

This study is scientific proof that Chambers Creek fish are not damaging the wild populations genetically, as a competitor for food or as a predator.


Here's a link to NOAA’s comment page
http://www.westcoast.fisheries.noaa.gov ... 4final.pdf

At this time, NOAA Fisheries is seeking input on the scope of the analysis, including the range
of reasonable alternatives, recommendations for methods of analysis and information on the
impacts of the alternatives. Those attending the workshops may submit comments on the
proposed scope of the draft EIS by leaving them at the workshops, submitting them by email to
EWShatcheriesEIS.wcr@noaa.gov; faxing them to 360-753-9517; or mailing or hand-delivering
them to NMFS Sustainable Fisheries Division, 510 Desmond Dr. S.E., Suite 103, Lacey, WA,
98503.

For further information on the project, the Hatchery and Genetic Management Plans for the steelhead hatchery programs under review, and to see documents
produced so far, go to: http://www.westcoast.fisheries.noaa.gov ... eries.html



PLEASE GET INVOLVED!!!

1. We must send letters to NOAA. They were very poignant in stating that our letters count. They don’t want to see form letters, they want personal thoughts, opinions & suggestions.

2. Possibly for the first time NOAA, WDFW, TRIBES and SPORTFISHERMEN all on the same page, fighting for the same cause. While sportsmen often disagree with tribal influence, with this topic all sides working together can be more powerful than an extremist environmental group, At the very least it is reason for hope that someday all stakeholders can work together on fish issues.

3. We need to push NOAA to complete the review as fast as we can. If the EIS gets held up in litigation and does not get approved next spring we will lose near all brood stock and the Chambers creek run is over.

4. Maybe the most important aspect: If WFC gets its way with these hatchery fish it sets a dangerous president for Salmon Hatcheries. A win here and their targets will be set on the beloved Hatchery Chinook. If we, as sport fishermen, want fish into the future we need to act now!


Finally, the WFC is using a broken formula for fish management. Most of the science they quote is not basin specific and has nothing to do with what is going on in Puget Sound. Science from the Hood River in Oregon has no place in the discussion about our local streams.

According to the IRS the WFC has a one million dollar payroll each year.
That is a huge amount of money for a small 501c3 to support. This means they have to generate revenue however they can. When Beardslee started Washington trout 20 years ago it was him an a couple guys getting habitat restoration work and covering their salaries. Today this inflated payroll has to be fed and they are proving that they will feed it any way possible.

Just last year WFC was managing a project on the Snoqualmie where they were cutting corners to save money. Meanwhile illegal dumping destroyed habitat in other parts of the watershed. In this case they got caught….passed the blame to the subcontractor and moved on.
Here's a link to the news coverage of that event: http://www.king5.com/story/tech/science ... /13297348/

WFC was in charge of the project and failed to oversee the subcontractor. How many times has WFC cut corners on taxpayer funded projects to line their pockets?

Fish management of fish by a singular group is wrong. Fish management of fish through litigation is wrong. Fish management for the almighty dollar is wrong. Its time this comes to a head. We need to save our Chambers program and set the stage for all stakeholders to work together.

Make no mistake about it. The WFC suits have nothing to do with wild steelhead. Those suits are about money and more money for WFC and their exploitation of an administrative loophole. The Chambers program HGMP's would be approved if NOAA-F would do their jobs, review and approve them, and close the loophole.

Those suits do not contribute to the cause of recovering wild steelhead, or creating opportunity to fish for steelhead, but those suits do impair the ability of WDFW to do their job.

You're dead right on this one, Tom. Keep after it!

I lived in Campbell River on Vancouver Island for 10 years and I have friends who work in different hatcheries. Hatcheries are important for wild fish because for a lot of rivers they use wild broodstock to save thespecies in that river system. they clip some of the fish and let people fish for them.some rivers would be bare of all fish because of floods snd human contac from houses and industry.

In looking at the WDFW report, I'm a bit puzzled (without delving into all of the science). I believe that RRP (on their graph) may be return rate per spawner? If so, does the report consider that in many streams (and some of those listed), that hatchery fish are differentially taken out of the system through the mark/selective fishery (this includes both salmon and steelhead which are caught either in the streams and/or the ocean). If it is not considered, then the results presented are not surprising (the hatchery fish would have a lower return per spawner because they are removed spawning population through mark/selective harvest). In addition, the "fitness" still needs to be better addressed. For example, the hatchery fish along with "wild" fish leave the river of origin, migrate and feed in the Pacific Ocean for several years, and both return to the home stream, often only identifiable (visually) by the missing adipose of some other marker. If the hatchery fish can make it through 99% of the life cycle, are they that much different from "wild" fish and shouldn't the 1% (or whatever small amount of difference between the two) be further researched, rather than eliminating the program entirely (in essence, the winter steelhead fishery in many streams was totally eliminated by the current settlement case)?

Where's the actual study? That's just a powerpoint presentation about the study....