WSB hatchery article - Kayak Fishing Adventures on Big Water’s Edge

taggermike · 01-21-2016, 08:45 AM

I made this post primarily to show another side of the feel good every things going great PR that comes out of the Hubbs institute. This program was always experimental and I believe has run its course. Hubbs claims a large part of the wsb recovery is due to their efforts. In reality traditional marine fisheries techniques such as reduced bag lmits, reduced bag limits in spawning season, increased mimimum size limits, and the elimination of gill nets from state waters have had a vastly greater impact on increasing wsb populations.

The state Fish and Wildlife pathologist's duty in checking the fish leaving the hatchery and again prior to release is to prevent the hatchery fish from spreading disease to wild fish stocks. If the fish are pathogen free they can be released. The quality control, genetic variety, and coded wire tag retention are the responsibility of the hatchery.

The hatchery's goal is to produce wsb that will survive to maturity and aid the reproductive population. The other goal for the fish is they will reach a catchable size to take fishing pressure off the wild fish. Releasing massive numbers of fish means nothing if they can not survive the 3-5 years it takes to reach sexual maturity/catchable size. Clearly fish that are blind, have spinal deformities, and heart defects have a greatly reduced chance of survival.

Mike

grey zone · 01-21-2016, 05:13 PM

I have always felt that introducing hatchery raised fish into the wild was a bad idea. I feel the release of large numbers of fish that are reared from a limited genetic stock just does not make sense, it will only end up diluting the genetics of the wild stock. If the stocking program was working I think there would be seeing a steady increase in WSB counts of smaller fish but I have not noticed that. The WSB fishing has been really good for many years now, especially when squid is around but these big fish are not hatchery raised. I would bet everything that these big fish are a direct result of AB 132 which was the bill that allowed CA voters to ban gill nets within 3 miles of the coast. I think the year was 1991 and this time line kind of fits what I'm seeing now and it seems like the fish just keep getting bigger.

Scripps pursuit of farm raising fish in the ocean is another slippery slope, they tried a few years back to get the permits to raise striped bass on the Mission Beach rockfish grounds known as the 270. Luckily their attempt failed, they would have ruined that place but they wanted to use the hard bottom to secure their anchors. If Scripps is attempting to revive their raising of fish off our coast I would be very concerned about were they are planning to do this.

jorluivil · 01-21-2016, 05:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by taggermike

I made this post primarily to show another side of the feel good every things going great PR that comes out of the Hubbs institute. This program was always experimental and I believe has run its course. Hubbs claims a large part of the wsb recovery is due to their efforts. In reality traditional marine fisheries techniques such as reduced bag lmits, reduced bag limits in spawning season, increased mimimum size limits, and the elimination of gill nets from state waters have had a vastly greater impact on increasing wsb populations.
Mike

I'm not saying this to get in a pissing match or to start some bullshit keyboard fight but..............................

Wasn't everything that humanity built or created based on experiments? electricity, penicillin, x-rays, the thing you're typing on? Don't get me wrong, I respect your opinion about this matter but to say that something has run its course is a slap in the face to those that have poured countless hours into helping make this work, especially when you consider that YOU may be benefiting from this from time to time.

Again, not trying to get into some bullshit keyboard fight, just wanted to share my thoughts.

taggermike · 01-21-2016, 08:03 PM

No offense taken Jorluivil. Indeed, Every thing we learn is from experiments. But experiment can go 3 ways. Hypothesis confirmed, failed, or inconclusive. We can learn from all these out comes. And much has been learned from the wsb hatchery program. But it's main goal of enhancing wild stocks is increasingly looking like a failure. Its been over 20 years that hatchery produced wsb have been released but they are not being found in significant numbers in the adult population of wsb off our coast. I feel that this experiment has run long enough to ascertain if the program is working. And it isn't.

This is no slap in the face to those that have worked hard on this program. Their work wasn't wasted. The real waste of their efforts is to continue to operate as if the hatchery program is succeeding. Much was learned but the program has not come close to fulfilling it's goals. If the program only operates to make people feel good then that is a true waste of hard work, effort, and money. Mike

jorluivil · 01-21-2016, 09:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by taggermike

No offense taken Jorluivil. Indeed, Every thing we learn is from experiments. But experiment can go 3 ways. Hypothesis confirmed, failed, or inconclusive. We can learn from all these out comes. And much has been learned from the wsb hatchery program. But it's main goal of enhancing wild stocks is increasingly looking like a failure. Its been over 20 years that hatchery produced wsb have been released but they are not being found in significant numbers in the adult population of wsb off our coast. I feel that this experiment has run long enough to ascertain if the program is working. And it isn't.

This is no slap in the face to those that have worked hard on this program. Their work wasn't wasted. The real waste of their efforts is to continue to operate as if the hatchery program is succeeding. Much was learned but the program has not come close to fulfilling it's goals. If the program only operates to make people feel good then that is a true waste of hard work, effort, and money. Mike

alanw · 01-21-2016, 11:27 PM

There's nothing man can do that is as good as mother nature. These politicians and enviro scientists invent problems to justify their own existence. Here's an idea - stop raping the ocean and it will fix itself.

Saba Slayer · 01-22-2016, 07:11 AM

I think I'll leave it up to the Science Advisory Committee (SAC) to make this important decidsion.
"Its been over 20 years that hatchery produced wsb have been released"...well over 20 years, the first batch of fish was released in 1986.
After 10 years of working with the program and seeing lots of data...Unlike yourself I still don't feel qualified to make this kind of scientific decision... Mike says..."I feel that this experiment has run long enough to ascertain if the program is working. And it isn't." How did you scientifically come to this fact, when it's going to take over 2 years for the scientific community to make this decision. Did the San Diego Coastkeepers influence your decision or are you working with the release and recapture data or is this just your gut feeling?
The SAC group is scheduled to meet in March of 2017 to review their progress. A written draft of their programmatic review is expected Spring 2017 with a final draft anticipated by Fall of 2017. The program will live or die with the decisions made by SAC. and not just a few individuals.

taggermike · 01-22-2016, 04:16 PM

I chose the 20 year time frame because the the initial releases from the mission bay facility, pre Carlsbad hatchery, were small. I do not have the release and rrecovery data right in front of me. But I have seen it recently. The majority of recovered tagged wsb are juveniles that have come from the Hubbs gill netting survey and from fish killed in power plants rather than adult legal sized fish caught by anglers. I believe tagged fish recovered peaked '08 at 30 fish. Over the last 4 years the recoveries have been in single digits. I dont know the total number of wsb released since 1986. More than 2 million I'm sure. It's a big ocean and this is a complicated program. But after 2 million fish released to recover less than 10 for four years straight indicates very low survival.

Clearly I do not have access to all the data nor the expertice to analyze it all. The low numbers of adult fish recovered in relation to the numbers of juveniles release is a bad sign. Factor in the mortality, euthenasia, and levels of deformity and is appears the program is producing low quality fish with very little chance of survival. I'll be looking forward to the SAC final draft.

I have nothing to do with the coast keepers and haven't heard any thing they have to say about the program. Mike

01-21-2016, 11:27 PM	#6
alanw Made in U.S.A. Join Date: Oct 2012 Location: Dana Point Posts: 1,625	There's nothing man can do that is as good as mother nature. These politicians and enviro scientists invent problems to justify their own existence. Here's an idea - stop raping the ocean and it will fix itself. __________________ Hobie PA 14 ¸.·´¯`·.´¯`·.¸¸.·´¯`·.¸><(((º> Jackson Kraken ¸.·´¯`·.¸.·´¯`·.´¯`·.¸¸.·´¯`·.¸><(((º> Malibu X-Factor ¸.·´¯`·.´¯`·.¸¸.·´¯`·.¸><(((º> Malibu Stealth-12 ¸.·´¯`·.´¯`·.¸¸.·´¯`·.¸><(((º> Its not a spelling B its a fishing B ~yakjoe

01-22-2016, 07:11 AM	#7
Saba Slayer Senior Member Join Date: May 2007 Location: Palos Verdes Posts: 1,878	Science I think I'll leave it up to the Science Advisory Committee (SAC) to make this important decidsion. "Its been over 20 years that hatchery produced wsb have been released"...well over 20 years, the first batch of fish was released in 1986. After 10 years of working with the program and seeing lots of data...Unlike yourself I still don't feel qualified to make this kind of scientific decision... Mike says..."I feel that this experiment has run long enough to ascertain if the program is working. And it isn't." How did you scientifically come to this fact, when it's going to take over 2 years for the scientific community to make this decision. Did the San Diego Coastkeepers influence your decision or are you working with the release and recapture data or is this just your gut feeling? The SAC group is scheduled to meet in March of 2017 to review their progress. A written draft of their programmatic review is expected Spring 2017 with a final draft anticipated by Fall of 2017. The program will live or die with the decisions made by SAC. and not just a few individuals. __________________ Jim / Saba Slayer

01-21-2016, 08:45 AM	#1
taggermike Senior Member Join Date: May 2007 Location: Chula Vista Posts: 1,589	I made this post primarily to show another side of the feel good every things going great PR that comes out of the Hubbs institute. This program was always experimental and I believe has run its course. Hubbs claims a large part of the wsb recovery is due to their efforts. In reality traditional marine fisheries techniques such as reduced bag lmits, reduced bag limits in spawning season, increased mimimum size limits, and the elimination of gill nets from state waters have had a vastly greater impact on increasing wsb populations. The state Fish and Wildlife pathologist's duty in checking the fish leaving the hatchery and again prior to release is to prevent the hatchery fish from spreading disease to wild fish stocks. If the fish are pathogen free they can be released. The quality control, genetic variety, and coded wire tag retention are the responsibility of the hatchery. The hatchery's goal is to produce wsb that will survive to maturity and aid the reproductive population. The other goal for the fish is they will reach a catchable size to take fishing pressure off the wild fish. Releasing massive numbers of fish means nothing if they can not survive the 3-5 years it takes to reach sexual maturity/catchable size. Clearly fish that are blind, have spinal deformities, and heart defects have a greatly reduced chance of survival. Mike

01-21-2016, 05:13 PM	#2
grey zone Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: san diego Posts: 158	I have always felt that introducing hatchery raised fish into the wild was a bad idea. I feel the release of large numbers of fish that are reared from a limited genetic stock just does not make sense, it will only end up diluting the genetics of the wild stock. If the stocking program was working I think there would be seeing a steady increase in WSB counts of smaller fish but I have not noticed that. The WSB fishing has been really good for many years now, especially when squid is around but these big fish are not hatchery raised. I would bet everything that these big fish are a direct result of AB 132 which was the bill that allowed CA voters to ban gill nets within 3 miles of the coast. I think the year was 1991 and this time line kind of fits what I'm seeing now and it seems like the fish just keep getting bigger. Scripps pursuit of farm raising fish in the ocean is another slippery slope, they tried a few years back to get the permits to raise striped bass on the Mission Beach rockfish grounds known as the 270. Luckily their attempt failed, they would have ruined that place but they wanted to use the hard bottom to secure their anchors. If Scripps is attempting to revive their raising of fish off our coast I would be very concerned about were they are planning to do this.

01-21-2016, 08:03 PM	#4
taggermike Senior Member Join Date: May 2007 Location: Chula Vista Posts: 1,589	No offense taken Jorluivil. Indeed, Every thing we learn is from experiments. But experiment can go 3 ways. Hypothesis confirmed, failed, or inconclusive. We can learn from all these out comes. And much has been learned from the wsb hatchery program. But it's main goal of enhancing wild stocks is increasingly looking like a failure. Its been over 20 years that hatchery produced wsb have been released but they are not being found in significant numbers in the adult population of wsb off our coast. I feel that this experiment has run long enough to ascertain if the program is working. And it isn't. This is no slap in the face to those that have worked hard on this program. Their work wasn't wasted. The real waste of their efforts is to continue to operate as if the hatchery program is succeeding. Much was learned but the program has not come close to fulfilling it's goals. If the program only operates to make people feel good then that is a true waste of hard work, effort, and money. Mike

01-22-2016, 04:16 PM	#8
taggermike Senior Member Join Date: May 2007 Location: Chula Vista Posts: 1,589	I chose the 20 year time frame because the the initial releases from the mission bay facility, pre Carlsbad hatchery, were small. I do not have the release and rrecovery data right in front of me. But I have seen it recently. The majority of recovered tagged wsb are juveniles that have come from the Hubbs gill netting survey and from fish killed in power plants rather than adult legal sized fish caught by anglers. I believe tagged fish recovered peaked '08 at 30 fish. Over the last 4 years the recoveries have been in single digits. I dont know the total number of wsb released since 1986. More than 2 million I'm sure. It's a big ocean and this is a complicated program. But after 2 million fish released to recover less than 10 for four years straight indicates very low survival. Clearly I do not have access to all the data nor the expertice to analyze it all. The low numbers of adult fish recovered in relation to the numbers of juveniles release is a bad sign. Factor in the mortality, euthenasia, and levels of deformity and is appears the program is producing low quality fish with very little chance of survival. I'll be looking forward to the SAC final draft. I have nothing to do with the coast keepers and haven't heard any thing they have to say about the program. Mike