Are all hatchery coho clipped?

[flydon]

As far as I am aware, the fact that it is a hatchery fish does not affect it's capability of spawning!
What you are doing though is not getting different genes into the fish population if you do not get a variety of wild fish.
The only two types of fish that I have heard of being unable to procreate are "triploid trout" where the eggs are shaken,this causes the fish to get big without procreation, and in Ontario they crossed brook trout with lake trout,and called the offspring "splake"
Don

 

[h-core]

quote:Originally posted by Charlie

Approximately 2/3 of the fish caught in the Nootka Island area (both North & South) offshore and inshore, are from the Conuma fishery! DFO is VERY interested in protecting those "precious" fish and I DO NOT mean that sarcastically… THEY ARE PRECIOUS! I am fine with them only clipping a small percentage! That very well could be BC salmon future salvation!

75% of the salmon caught offshore south of Estevan Point are headed to the U.S., yep including the Coho? Hence the 1-mile surf line closure. What are you guys thinking… Keep catching those "Yankee" fish of ours, and protect and rebuild your runs!

The only thing I don't like, is having to turn back a "dead" fish! That needs to be fixed... I saw WAY to much of that this year, me included!

Just IMHO!

Where are you getting your info? Going through escapement records from Nootka & Esperanza sounds, the wild stocks out number the Conuma Hatchery coho. Do most of the US fish just come to shore at Estivan? Seems odd. DFO didn't build hatcheries for salmon salvation, they were built to produce salmon to be caught.
Here are some recent escapement numbers...
Keeping in mind these are fish observed and each system will likely have more than counted...
Conuma 1239(07)
Gold 934 (01)-no data since?
Burman 297(07)
Tlupana 196 (06)
Canton 231(07)
Sucwoa 146(07)
Kleeptee Creek 273(07)
Tsowwin River 461 (07)
Mooyah river 126 (07)
Leiner River 472 (07)
Tahsis River 802 (07)
Zaballos River 149 (07)
Little Zaballos 175 (07)
These are just a few of the larger systems in the area. There are lots of other small streams that have coho. The numbers vary huge from year to year and sometimes the Conuma is a huge producer. However, I highly doubt that 2/3rds of all coho caught inshore and offshore north & south are bound for the Conuma. Sorry, just doesn't add up.

 

[Charlie]

quote:Originally posted by h-core

quote:Originally posted by Charlie

Approximately 2/3 of the fish caught in the Nootka Island area (both North & South) offshore and inshore, are from the Conuma fishery! DFO is VERY interested in protecting those "precious" fish and I DO NOT mean that sarcastically… THEY ARE PRECIOUS! I am fine with them only clipping a small percentage! That very well could be BC salmon future salvation!

75% of the salmon caught offshore south of Estevan Point are headed to the U.S., yep including the Coho? Hence the 1-mile surf line closure. What are you guys thinking… Keep catching those "Yankee" fish of ours, and protect and rebuild your runs!
Just IMHO!

Where are you getting your info? Going through escapement records from Nootka & Esperanza sounds, the wild stocks out number the Conuma Hatchery coho.

COHO 181 - Canadian fish 140 - 77.4% USA fish 41 - 22.6%
CHINOOK 103 - Canadian fish 62 - 60.2% USA fish 41- 39.8%

Coho: 61.9% of the Canadian fish were from Vancouver Island stocks. Of that 73.2% were from the Conuma Hatchery.
Coho: USA stocks varied from 1 per area to a high of 8. Although the fish came from Washington, Oregon, and California, the majority came from Washington State stocks.

Chinook: 77.4% of the Canadian fish came from Vancouver Island stocks with the majority of these, 59.7%, coming from the Conuma Hatchery.
Chinook: USA fish again had quite a diversity varying from 1 to a 5 count with Washington stock leading, followed by Oregon and California.

Data provided by Doug Herriot Fisheries Analyst, Fisheries and Oceans Canada
Westview Marina 2008 Salmon Head Recovery Program Results

quoteo most of the US fish just come to shore at Estivan? Seems odd.

Nope! But, most of the Conuma fish start moving up the water column and in. As they are coming up and towards shore they become the primary target for most anglers, while the rest are farther out and deeper! Once past Estevan Point the start running into the "banks" as the U.S. fish start crossing over the banks, they become the primary target! 75% of the fish caught south of Estevan are U.S!

quoteFO didn't build hatcheries for salmon salvation, they were built to produce salmon to be caught.

"The Conuma Enhancement Facility was built in 1978 with the goal of major enhancement of wild chum salmon stocks in the area and minor enhancement of wild coho, chinook and steelhead stocks in the Conuma River to offset any incidental catch in the commercial fisheries."

http://www-heb.pac.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/facilities/conuma/background_info_e.htm

quote:The numbers vary huge from year to year and sometimes the Conuma is a huge producer. However, I highly doubt that 2/3rds of all coho caught inshore and offshore north & south are bound for the Conuma. Sorry, just doesn't add up.

Does it add up - now?

 

[reelfast]

flydon, the studies seem to indicate that 'most' hatchery fish are unsuccessful spawners. not my words, those of fisheries folks who have been doing these studies trying to figure out how to protect 'wild' fish. intermixing of DNA is a very bad thing as it also tends to produce fishes which are less capable of survival on the high seas. again, study after study. if you are interested, google and start reading.

 

[h-core]

quote:Originally posted by Charlie


Where are you getting your info? Going through escapement records from Nootka & Esperanza sounds, the wild stocks out number the Conuma Hatchery coho.

COHO 181 - Canadian fish 140 - 77.4% USA fish 41 - 22.6%
CHINOOK 103 - Canadian fish 62 - 60.2% USA fish 41- 39.8%

Coho: 61.9% of the Canadian fish were from Vancouver Island stocks. Of that 73.2% were from the Conuma Hatchery.
Coho: USA stocks varied from 1 per area to a high of 8. Although the fish came from Washington, Oregon, and California, the majority came from Washington State stocks.

Chinook: 77.4% of the Canadian fish came from Vancouver Island stocks with the majority of these, 59.7%, coming from the Conuma Hatchery.
Chinook: USA fish again had quite a diversity varying from 1 to a 5 count with Washington stock leading, followed by Oregon and California.

Data provided by Doug Herriot Fisheries Analyst, Fisheries and Oceans Canada
Westview Marina 2008 Salmon Head Recovery Program Results

Does it add up - now?

NOPE!!! These numbers represent hatchery fish only, do they not? Pretty hard to get a wire tag read on a wild fish! Or, are they using DNA testing? Odd with the chinook origin's? I have 2 heads to return from Bajo that were marked. When I questioned a DFO offical about it, I was told that they are no longer clipping or tagging chinook from the Conuma. He didn't figure they were clipping any chinook on the West coast of V.I. or anywhere in southern BC for that matter. The thought was that they were surely heading south of the border. I'll have to send them back and get the real story....

 

[chris73]

Reelfast, be careful to say hatchery fish screw up the wild ones. I know there were some in the past and there might be still few hatcheries that did not operate properly as they should. Hatcheries are there to ENHANCE the wild stocks - not to replace them. In order to achieve that one needs a good understanding of the number of wilds left in the stream and what the rearing and spawning capacity of the stream is. Once you find that the rearing and spawning capacity of a stream is larger than the wild stocks remaining, you can fill that gap with hatchery bred salmon without any harm to the wilds remaining. After a few generations you will actually have rebuilt the wild stocks as through interbreeding and mutation effects over some generations any genetical disorders of a few hatchery fish will be gone. The danger is when you throw millions upon millions of hatchery salmon into a stream that can only support - let's say a few thousand. Then the competition for food and habitat among the wild and hatchery juveniles will be so fierce that you run the great danger of losing your last true wild fish. Plus this fierce competition usually results in poor physical conditions of all juveniles and consequently results in poor survival. That happened some decades ago when the first hatcheries were set up and before they knew those effects. I know that the vast majority of the Canadian hatcheries do embrace a proper enhancement program now and the negative impacts are near zero compared to the huge benefits to our enhanced streams and ecosystems. The Sooke River for instance had 1 chinook in 1981 returning. Without the hatchery there would not be any chinooks and likely no coho left at all.

 

[Charlie]

quote:Originally posted by chris73

Reelfast, be careful to say hatchery fish screw up the wild ones. I know there were some in the past and there might be still few hatcheries that did not operate properly as they should. Hatcheries are there to ENHANCE the wild stocks - not to replace them. In order to achieve that one needs a good understanding of the number of wilds left in the stream and what the rearing and spawning capacity of the stream is. Once you find that the rearing and spawning capacity of a stream is larger than the wild stocks remaining, you can fill that gap with hatchery bred salmon without any harm to the wilds remaining. After a few generations you will actually have rebuilt the wild stocks as through interbreeding and mutation effects over some generations any genetical disorders of a few hatchery fish will be gone. The danger is when you throw millions upon millions of hatchery salmon into a stream that can only support - let's say a few thousand. Then the competition for food and habitat among the wild and hatchery juveniles will be so fierce that you run the great danger of losing your last true wild fish. Plus this fierce competition usually results in poor physical conditions of all juveniles and consequently results in poor survival. That happened some decades ago when the first hatcheries were set up and before they knew those effects. I know that the vast majority of the Canadian hatcheries do enbrace a proper enhancement program now and the negative impacts are near zero compared to the huge benefits to our enhanced streams and ecosystems. The Sooke River for instance had 1 chinook in 1981 returning. Without the hatchery there would not be any chinooks and likely no coho left at all.

X2 100% Correct!

 

[h-core]

quote:Originally posted by Charlie

I do agree with your reasoning, but keep in mind the number of Coho produced by Conuma over the years, which totals 3,703,425. For the most part Conuma clips very few Coho and the returning fish have been allowed to spawn naturally and have been what is now considered "wild". We have right to agree to disagree!

2006 55797
2005 141749
2004 129595
2003 153926
2002 167714
2001 145777
2000 97644
1999 173668
1998 31034
1997 120048
1996 100530
1995 85448
1994 159024
1993 175193
1992 164748
1991 226117
1990 176768
1989 182028
1988 199909
1987 226483
1986 237799
1985 229035
1984 82000
1983 141010
1982 100381

Are you sure those numbers don't represent yearling releases? Here's the numbers I have.Hmm, something fishy's going on...
2006 2860
2005 2219
2004 no record
2003 5028
2002 10387
2001 10883
2000 11394
1999 1839
1998 1988
1997 1130
1996 2700
1995 2055
1994 200
1993 500
1992 3500
1991 10000
1990 7300
1989 4000
1988 4000
1987 5000
1986 7020
1985 600
1984 580
1983 500
1982 500

 

[reelfast]

hatcheries exist for one and only one reason, commercial harvest!

the concept of maximum sustained yield (MSY) has reduced the production of naturally spawning fishes and has had a direct and negative impact on the genetics of various eco system fishes. the studies on harvest are atrocious and were aimed at a single sector, commercials. once excapement of wilds to spawn was so dramatically reduced, (in so many square meters now many fishes do you need to spawn? darwinian thinking says as many as possible, MSY says about 12 fish for a 10 x 10 meter gravel bed) the stocks tanked, virtually everywhere. enter the hatcheries and their genetically inferior stocks of fishes.

there is some indication that hatchery produced fishes raised in spawning 'channels' where pellet foods are dramatically reduced forcing these fish to forage, has produced stocks a bit more capable of survival and return. unfortunately concrete pond raised fishes predominate and they are a major reason for the collapse of naturally spawning 'wild' stocks.

the decades of research on this exact topic are pretty much all in agreement regarding what needs to be done and more hatchery fishes is not the answer, period.

 

[h-core]

quote:Originally posted by Charlie

WOW! Where did you get your numbers? I got mine here: http://www.canbcdw.pac.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/ows/reports/releaseReport.asp?IDValue=117#Cohoreleased fromConuma R

No wonder you are disagreeing? I would really like to know where your numbers are coming from???

Total Coho Released from Conuma R Project
LOL.....
ReleaseYear TotalReleased
2006 55797
2005 141749
2004 129595
2003 153926
2002 167714
2001 145777
2000 97644
1999 173668
1998 31034
1997 120048
1996 100530
1995 85448
1994 159024
1993 175193
1992 164748
1991 226117
1990 176768
1989 182028
1988 199909
1987 226483
1986 237799
1985 229035
1984 82000
1983 141010
1982 100381

My numbers are from another DFO site & represent escapment(returning adults) not releases.

 

[h-core]

quote:Originally posted by reelfast

hatcheries exist for one and only one reason, commercial harvest!

the concept of maximum sustained yield (MSY) has reduced the production of naturally spawning fishes and has had a direct and negative impact on the genetics of various eco system fishes. the studies on harvest are atrocious and were aimed at a single sector, commercials. once excapement of wilds to spawn was so dramatically reduced, (in so many square meters now many fishes do you need to spawn? darwinian thinking says as many as possible, MSY says about 12 fish for a 10 x 10 meter gravel bed) the stocks tanked, virtually everywhere. enter the hatcheries and their genetically inferior stocks of fishes.

there is some indication that hatchery produced fishes raised in spawning 'channels' where pellet foods are dramatically reduced forcing these fish to forage, has produced stocks a bit more capable of survival and return. unfortunately concrete pond raised fishes predominate and they are a major reason for the collapse of naturally spawning 'wild' stocks.

the decades of research on this exact topic are pretty much all in agreement regarding what needs to be done and more hatchery fishes is not the answer, period.

The answer lies in habitat repair/ improvement, & reduced catch(including their food!). Small scale enhancement to give wild stocks a hand does work. However, you will only ever get back what the avaliable habitat can produce.

 

[h-core]

quote:Originally posted by Charlie

quote:Originally posted by h-core

quote:Originally posted by Charlie

WOW! Where did you get your numbers? I got mine here: http://www.canbcdw.pac.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/ows/reports/releaseReport.asp?IDValue=117#Cohoreleased fromConuma R

No wonder you are disagreeing? I would really like to know where your numbers are coming from???

Total Coho Released from Conuma R Project
LOL.....
ReleaseYear TotalReleased
2006 55797
2005 141749
2004 129595
2003 153926
2002 167714
2001 145777
2000 97644
1999 173668
1998 31034
1997 120048
1996 100530
1995 85448
1994 159024
1993 175193
1992 164748
1991 226117
1990 176768
1989 182028
1988 199909
1987 226483
1986 237799
1985 229035
1984 82000
1983 141010
1982 100381

My numbers are from another DFO site.

Well the numbers you posted, are the numbers I got from the site I used... What might be the site you got yours from, may I ask!

Mapster

 

[h-core]

quote:Originally posted by Charlie

quote:Originally posted by h-core

[quoteMapster

Ah... I would use the actual Hatchery site over Mapster! [?]

Huh? You posted hatchery releases. Read the link you provided-or the copy/paste I made from your link where I highlighted in red "hatchery releases". I posted real escapement numbers. As I mentioned earlier, these numbers represent a sampling and there's typically more fish than what's counted. What, do you think we actually release numbers simmilar to you guys down south? LOL, not likely.

 

[h-core]

quote:Originally posted by Charlie

quote:Originally posted by h-core

quote:Originally posted by Charlie

quote:Originally posted by h-core

[quoteMapster

Ah... I would use the actual Hatchery site over Mapster! [?]

Huh? You posted hatchery releases. Read the link you provided-or the copy/paste I made from your link where I highlighted in red "hatchery releases". I posted real escapement numbers. As I mentioned earlier, these numbers represent a sampling and there's typically more fish than what's counted. What, do you think we actually release numbers simmilar to you guys down south? LOL, not likely.

Dah...
I am sorry, I didn't catch your "Apples and Oranges"? But, why are you even comparing release numbers, with escapement numbers? And then applying it to one river?? Yep, we have the right to agree to disagree! Sorry, I wasted my time in this conversation!

WHAT ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT THEN?????? You are posting numbers of released JUVENILLE coho as returning adults!!!! I'm posting ESCAPMENT numbers which is RETURNING ADULTS! And BTW, mapster has the same data...it's a DFO site with DFO info. Yah, as if ANY Van Isl. river got 141749 coho back in 2005!!!! Please just admit you might have been wrong and we can move on.

 

[h-core]

quote:Originally posted by Charlie

quote:Originally posted by h-core

quote:Originally posted by Charlie

quote:Originally posted by h-core

quote:Originally posted by Charlie

quote:Originally posted by h-core

[quoteMapster

Ah... I would use the actual Hatchery site over Mapster! [?]

Huh? You posted hatchery releases. Read the link you provided-or the copy/paste I made from your link where I highlighted in red "hatchery releases". I posted real escapement numbers. As I mentioned earlier, these numbers represent a sampling and there's typically more fish than what's counted. What, do you think we actually release numbers simmilar to you guys down south? LOL, not likely.

Dah...
I am sorry, I didn't catch your "Apples and Oranges"? But, why are you even comparing release numbers, with escapement numbers? And then applying it to one river?? Yep, we have the right to agree to disagree! Sorry, I wasted my time in this conversation!

WHAT ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT THEN?????? You are posting numbers of released JUVENILLE coho as returning adults!!!! I'm posting ESCAPMENT numbers which is RETURNING ADULTS! And BTW, mapster has the same data...it's a DFO site with DFO info. Yah, as if ANY Van Isl. river got 141749 coho back in 2005!!!! Please just admit you might have been wrong and we can move on.

I am wrong all the time... and don't have a problem admiting it, but NOPE! I STAND BY WHAT I SAID!
Go troll somewhere else!

Not trolling. Incase this is just a miscomunication. Are you saying the numbers you posted represent returning adults or juvenille releases?

 

[h-core]

quote:Originally posted by Charlie
I am wrong all the time... and don't have a problem admiting it, but NOPE! I STAND BY WHAT I SAID!
Go troll somewhere else!

Not trolling. Incase this is just a miscomunication. Are you saying the numbers you posted represent returning adults or juvenille releases?
[/quote]

This fish is OFF the HOOK! Throw your hook somewhere else! [:0][:0][}][}]

My Contact Info
No info specified...
Links
Homepage: No homepage specified...
Cool Links: No link specified...
Basics
User Name: h-core
Location: Canada
Total Posts: 28
[0.68 posts per day]
Find all non-archived posts by h-core

[/quote]

What point are you trying to make?[)] Do I need 1126 (that's 1.47 know it all posts per day) to be credable? I politely asked if there was a miscomunication between us in my last post. Your reaction was to delete a bunch of your posts (you can read them all in my quotes) and instead of answering me you try to spin it as me trolling!!! LOL. Can you please just answer if you were refering to releases or returning adults?

 

[Charlie]

quote:Originally posted by h-core

quote:Originally posted by Charlie
I am wrong all the time... and don't have a problem admiting it, but NOPE! I STAND BY WHAT I SAID!
Go troll somewhere else!

Not trolling. Incase this is just a miscomunication. Are you saying the numbers you posted represent returning adults or juvenille releases?

This fish is OFF the HOOK! Throw your hook somewhere else! [:0][:0][}][}]

My Contact Info
No info specified...
Links
Homepage: No homepage specified...
Cool Links: No link specified...
Basics
User Name: h-core
Location: Canada
Total Posts: 28
[0.68 posts per day]
Find all non-archived posts by h-core

quote:
What point are you trying to make?[)] Do I need 1126 (that's 1.47 know it all posts per day) to be credable?

Nope... Not at all!

quote:I politely asked if there was a miscomunication between us in my last post.

Yep... you know what I was talking about!

quote:Your reaction was to delete a bunch of your posts (you can read them all in my quotes) and instead of answering me you try to spin it as me trolling!!!

Nope... I deleted ALL my posts that had to do with this conversation, except the ones that I thought others would benefit from!

quote: LOL. Can you please just answer if you were refering to releases or returning adults?

NOPE! This conversation is over unless you want to post a valid email address! Have a nice day... Cheers!

Oh... I forgot... feel free to PM ME with any questions... as my email is correct!

 

[Charlie]

Yep... That's what I thought! NO RESPONSE!
Where did you go? [?][?][?]

 

[h-core]

quote:Originally posted by Charlie

quote:I politely asked if there was a miscomunication between us in my last post.

Yep... you know what I was talking about!
No I don't, that's why I keep asking!

quote:Your reaction was to delete a bunch of your posts (you can read them all in my quotes) and instead of answering me you try to spin it as me trolling!!!

Nope... I deleted ALL my posts that had to do with this conversation, except the ones that I thought others would benefit from!

quote: LOL. Can you please just answer if you were refering to releases or returning adults?

NOPE! This conversation is over unless you want to post a valid email address! Have a nice day... Cheers!
Why would I want to share my e-mail address on an internet forum? I get enough spam as it is.
Oh... I forgot... feel free to PM ME with any questions... as my email is correct!
Why would I want to PM you?

Anyways, assuming you were refering to those numbers posted as hatchery releases (which they are) and you apply a really good ocean survival rate of 5% (what DFO is using for Robertson creek 2006 brood year releases) then the hatchery fish escapment off 55797 releases could be as high as 2790 to the approach area. Now assume some of those are harvested by lucky anglers and you get numbers simmilar to what I posted.

 

[h-core]

quote:Originally posted by Charlie

Yep... That's what I thought! NO RESPONSE!
Where did you go? [?][?][?]

Sorry, didn't want to spend all day on here. And, you said the coversation was over so I didn't expect you would be waiting around.