jamisonace
The concern here has nothing to do with trout. It's about separating wild salmon from hatchery salmon.
fishyden said:
KVAL salmon news report
S
steelhead_stalkers
Once again, there is no proof that there are hatchery salmon in any numbers up river. Show me this info. And don't say because Jeff Ziller says so. :lol:
S
steelhead_stalkers
After reading a little further into the paper above the info they collected about hatchery fish above leaburg does not make much sense.
"Until 2001 when almost all of the returning hatchery fish were marked, wild spring
Chinook were not readily distinguishable from hatchery fish in the hatchery, so there is
little specific information on the level of take associated with the adult trapping and
holding before that time."
So with all hatchery fish marked like natives there really was no way to tell them apart and the graphs above are not very accurate!
The paper also said that hatchery fish are to be removed once they are trapped at leaburg dam! Is someone not doing their job because according to that paper they should not make it past the dam? This would solve the issue of hatchery fish above leaburg competing with natives and it would be a whole lot cheaper than trucking fish to another river.
Here is another interesting quote.
"Currently, some surplus hatchery adults are hauled and released in the South Fork
McKenzie above Cougar Dam and in the mainstem McKenzie above Trail Bridge Dam to
use isolated habitats. The benefits don’t outweigh the risks at this time to move
unmarked fish above the dams on the McKenzie River" (Ziller et al. 2002).
So it looks like some if not all of those number in the graphs above were from the fish and game actually putting the hatchery fish there to spawn. Again, many if not all of the hatchery fish could be removed from above leaburg without having to move them to another river.
"Until 2001 when almost all of the returning hatchery fish were marked, wild spring
Chinook were not readily distinguishable from hatchery fish in the hatchery, so there is
little specific information on the level of take associated with the adult trapping and
holding before that time."
So with all hatchery fish marked like natives there really was no way to tell them apart and the graphs above are not very accurate!
The paper also said that hatchery fish are to be removed once they are trapped at leaburg dam! Is someone not doing their job because according to that paper they should not make it past the dam? This would solve the issue of hatchery fish above leaburg competing with natives and it would be a whole lot cheaper than trucking fish to another river.
Here is another interesting quote.
"Currently, some surplus hatchery adults are hauled and released in the South Fork
McKenzie above Cougar Dam and in the mainstem McKenzie above Trail Bridge Dam to
use isolated habitats. The benefits don’t outweigh the risks at this time to move
unmarked fish above the dams on the McKenzie River" (Ziller et al. 2002).
So it looks like some if not all of those number in the graphs above were from the fish and game actually putting the hatchery fish there to spawn. Again, many if not all of the hatchery fish could be removed from above leaburg without having to move them to another river.
Last edited:
brandon4455
i know a lot of you have a soft spot for those hatchery nooks in the mac and i understand that.. everyone has a kind of fish they like to target, especially if that fish is close to home.. and tastes good.
i do think they could prevent Hatchery fish from going above the dam without moving them to a different river, but then they would spawn below leaburg. there was a picture on the oregon fly fishing blog of a hatchery springer trying to spawn in the lower McKenzie.. same thing happend on the coast this past fall..there is an obstacle in a small river, lack of rain and i spotted fish spawning wayyy down low in the river where i have never seen em before. i think trying to keep em below leaburg might help a bit, but that wont stop them from doing what they are programmed to do. if they want to protect those wild springers more has to be done
i do think they could prevent Hatchery fish from going above the dam without moving them to a different river, but then they would spawn below leaburg. there was a picture on the oregon fly fishing blog of a hatchery springer trying to spawn in the lower McKenzie.. same thing happend on the coast this past fall..there is an obstacle in a small river, lack of rain and i spotted fish spawning wayyy down low in the river where i have never seen em before. i think trying to keep em below leaburg might help a bit, but that wont stop them from doing what they are programmed to do. if they want to protect those wild springers more has to be done
Last edited:
E
eugene1
I think there are two issues, SS. First, your quote says not all fish were marked (clipped), so they couldn't tell what was what. Not good. I believe this is referring to the take of fish at the hatchery for hatchery use. They aim to use some wild fish for broodstock, so that means they probably weren't using enough wild fish for the hatchery program.
Secondly, the numbers I presented in those figures only considered intact vs. fin-clipped fish. So, there were probably even more hatchery fish spawning upriver of the dam since all hatch-origin fish weren't clipped!
That article is pretty interesting to browse through. Turns out lots of non-McKenzie fish have been used throughout the years. Lots of Dexter fish introduced, which might be good for keeping some of the Middle fork wild genes available. In all, I don't think there are really any pure-breed Springers left on the McKenzie after all of the mixing over the years, but the fish don't care. Check this out:
"6.2.1) History.
The broodstock for the McKenzie River spring Chinook hatchery fish originated
primarily from adult returns to the McKenzie River basin. However, there has been some
intermingling of Middle Fork Willamette stock and there is evidence that strays from
other hatcheries were incorporated into the broodstock in the past. An ODFW document
(author and date unknown) indicates the following:
• “in some years from 1908-1938, the egg-take station for McKenzie Hatchery was
located at or below the confluence with the McKenzie and Willamette Rivers.
Willamette and McKenzie stocks were likely mixed on several occasions.”
• “… The 1953 brood reared and released at McKenzie Hatchery contained 30%
Middle Fork Willamette stock.”
• “From 1965 to 1975, almost every brood was comprised of or supplemented by
stocks transferred into McKenzie Hatchery or the McKenzie River from other
Willamette stations:
1965 - No egg take at McKenzie, unknown egg source, probably Dexter.
1966 - Got eggs from Dexter.
1967 – Got adults from Cougar, eggs from Dexter.
1968 – Got fry from Oakridge.
1969 – Got adults from Dexter, about 1/3 of the juveniles released were Dexter stock.
1970 – Adults shipped in from Dexter.
1971 – Adults shipped in from Fall Creek (Willamette stock) mixed with adults from
McKenzie.
1972 – Adults from McKenzie and Fall Creek (Willamette); Leaburg Hatchery reared
and released mixture of McKenzie and Marion Forks stocks.
1973 – Adults from McKenzie, Dexter, and Fall Creek (Willamette).
1974 – Unknown adult source; eggs came in from Oakridge.
1975 – 1.2 million eggs came in from South Santiam."
Secondly, the numbers I presented in those figures only considered intact vs. fin-clipped fish. So, there were probably even more hatchery fish spawning upriver of the dam since all hatch-origin fish weren't clipped!
That article is pretty interesting to browse through. Turns out lots of non-McKenzie fish have been used throughout the years. Lots of Dexter fish introduced, which might be good for keeping some of the Middle fork wild genes available. In all, I don't think there are really any pure-breed Springers left on the McKenzie after all of the mixing over the years, but the fish don't care. Check this out:
"6.2.1) History.
The broodstock for the McKenzie River spring Chinook hatchery fish originated
primarily from adult returns to the McKenzie River basin. However, there has been some
intermingling of Middle Fork Willamette stock and there is evidence that strays from
other hatcheries were incorporated into the broodstock in the past. An ODFW document
(author and date unknown) indicates the following:
• “in some years from 1908-1938, the egg-take station for McKenzie Hatchery was
located at or below the confluence with the McKenzie and Willamette Rivers.
Willamette and McKenzie stocks were likely mixed on several occasions.”
• “… The 1953 brood reared and released at McKenzie Hatchery contained 30%
Middle Fork Willamette stock.”
• “From 1965 to 1975, almost every brood was comprised of or supplemented by
stocks transferred into McKenzie Hatchery or the McKenzie River from other
Willamette stations:
1965 - No egg take at McKenzie, unknown egg source, probably Dexter.
1966 - Got eggs from Dexter.
1967 – Got adults from Cougar, eggs from Dexter.
1968 – Got fry from Oakridge.
1969 – Got adults from Dexter, about 1/3 of the juveniles released were Dexter stock.
1970 – Adults shipped in from Dexter.
1971 – Adults shipped in from Fall Creek (Willamette stock) mixed with adults from
McKenzie.
1972 – Adults from McKenzie and Fall Creek (Willamette); Leaburg Hatchery reared
and released mixture of McKenzie and Marion Forks stocks.
1973 – Adults from McKenzie, Dexter, and Fall Creek (Willamette).
1974 – Unknown adult source; eggs came in from Oakridge.
1975 – 1.2 million eggs came in from South Santiam."
E
eugene1
I don't know why they can't separate the fish better at Leaburg either. But even if they could, hatchery fish spawning below Leaburg is still an issue.
As I mentioned, I don't think the wild springers that we have today are a pure strain anyway.
As I mentioned, I don't think the wild springers that we have today are a pure strain anyway.
S
steelhead_stalkers
Good point. I thought it was crazy that Ziller thought it was ok back then to take surplus hatchery adults and release them up where natives are spawning!
E
eugene1
On a side note SS, your video on Springer fishing the Umpqua with living waters is playing back with some skips and stops. Is that on my end or is the vid damaged?
Later,
Later,
S
steelhead_stalkers
Its encoded with three different versions, the lowest quality level is around 800kbps. It sounds like your internet speed might not be keeping up. My internet out in the sticks is very slow and the videos sometimes skip. I am in the process of re-encoding all videos to a new version and that should help with skipping issues on slower internet connections. Should be done in a few weeks with all of the videos.
E
eugene1
steelhead_stalkers said:
Makes sense, my cable has been slow in the past. The video still worked ok, and those kwik take downs were sick anyway!
Later,
Similar threads
troutdude