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

taggermike · 01-20-2016, 07:35 PM

http://www.voiceofsandiego.org/topic...mixed-results/

I thought this was worth sharing. Things aren't going well with the hatchery program. Mike

Saba Slayer · 01-20-2016, 07:47 PM

Also from their source...San Diego Coastkeeper.
http://www.sdcoastkeeper.org/learn/f...en-s-pool.html

Saba Slayer · 01-20-2016, 07:49 PM

San Diego Coastkeeper says...
Many factors including pollution, climate change, and over-fishing contribute to kelp forest decline, and their collective impact is far greater than any individual stressor.

Saba Slayer · 01-20-2016, 07:52 PM

San Diego Coastkeeper says...
Average size across a wide range of West Coast fish is down by half from 20 years ago.

Saba Slayer · 01-20-2016, 07:54 PM

San Diego Coastkeeper says...
Here, nature is preserved for everyone to enjoy. In fact, if you are standing at La Jolla Cove looking out, you gaze upon the Matlahuayl State Marine Reserve, one of eleven marine protected areas (MPAs) that grace the coast of San Diego County.

You may even spot one of Coastkeeper's MPA Watch volunteers below, walking the high tide line, jotting down tally marks as they take observations of human use activities within the Marine Protected Area.

Saba Slayer · 01-20-2016, 07:59 PM

San Diego Coastkeeper firmly believes in the importance of MPAs. We heavily participated in the MLPA process and dedicated staff to fight for conservation interests on the Regional Stakeholder Group, whose input ultimately led to the creation of MPA maps for the Fish & Game Commission to consider. Following the completion of the design phase, we continued to advocate for the strongest possible protections for San Diego’s coast. Our education and outreach drew widespread community support including the endorsement of numerous elected officials and business leaders. Over 700 MPA supporters attended a Fish and Game Commission hearing on the issue held in San Diego in 2010.

Saba Slayer · 01-20-2016, 08:36 PM

There are two sides to every story...the review being done on the WSB project is something that was planned years ago by the state as a scientific review to access the project and see if we want to continue with the WSB species or move on to another species or just drop the program. This review is not being done due to problems with the program as the story makes it seem. The review is being done by scientists made up of folks from all over the country.
The money that DFW gives the project is from the saltwater stamp that you buy with your license. It was started years ago with the support of the Shedd's at AFTCO primarily to enable the hatchery.
The 4000 fish we lost in Redondo was due to a problem with the new desal treatment plant that was built a few yeras ago... It was not the fault of the WSB program... as a matter of fact the DFW considered suing the power plant for the lost fish.
Before every release the DFW sends a biologist to sample the health of the fish to be released...so i'm not sure where they got the info about deformed fish. If the fish are unhealthy and a threat to the species they are euthanized.
Anyone with a aquarium knows, that once a disease starts, it can spread pretty quickly (especially if you have 3000 to 5000 fish in the system)... So it seems to me that it's in the best interest of the species to euthanize the infected fish...even though it may bother the tree/fish huggers to see them die.
I'm not so sure I'd side with all the facts from this article as I think the San Diego Coastkeepers group has their own agenda and it doesn't seem to be too fisherman friendly...much like the Santa Monica "Heal the Bay" folks. I think this writer need to widen his sources.
Thanks for the link Mike...it's always good to see what the other side says.

taggermike · 01-21-2016, 09:45 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, 06:13 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, 06:29 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, 09:03 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, 10:08 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 · 01-22-2016, 12:27 AM

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, 08:11 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, 05:16 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

GregAndrew · 01-24-2016, 05:01 PM

I would guess that only about 1-5% of WSB caught are actually scanned for tags. But let's say it is 20% for arguments sake. That would put the actual catch of tagged WSB at around 100 per year if all were scanned right? Considering the attrition rate of any inshore species before reaching adulthood, I would consider it an accomplishment if the total number of released fish in the coastal population was 1,000 of the 1,000,000 released. Just like Sea Turtles, of the thousands hatched only a handful make it to adult size. If you think that all 1,000,000 were supposed to make it to 50lbers you need to consider the real fish world.

Also, the idea that any sickness is going to be transferred from these hatch-lings to the adult population is pretty nearsighted. There will be nearly zero chance of interaction of the juveniles with the adults (except as food). And deformities in fish (except in large size) is like them wearing a sign that says "Eat Me", cause predators key in on differences/weaknesses.

Personally, if Hubbs wants to keep funding the rearing and releasing of troubled species, I am all for it.

01-20-2016, 07:35 PM	#1
taggermike Senior Member Join Date: May 2007 Location: Chula Vista Posts: 1,589	WSB hatchery article http://www.voiceofsandiego.org/topic...mixed-results/ I thought this was worth sharing. Things aren't going well with the hatchery program. Mike

01-20-2016, 07:47 PM	#2
Saba Slayer Senior Member Join Date: May 2007 Location: Palos Verdes Posts: 1,857	San Diego Coastkeeper Also from their source...San Diego Coastkeeper. http://www.sdcoastkeeper.org/learn/f...en-s-pool.html __________________ Jim / Saba Slayer

01-20-2016, 07:49 PM	#3
Saba Slayer Senior Member Join Date: May 2007 Location: Palos Verdes Posts: 1,857	and... San Diego Coastkeeper says... Many factors including pollution, climate change, and over-fishing contribute to kelp forest decline, and their collective impact is far greater than any individual stressor. __________________ Jim / Saba Slayer

01-20-2016, 07:52 PM	#4
Saba Slayer Senior Member Join Date: May 2007 Location: Palos Verdes Posts: 1,857	and... San Diego Coastkeeper says... Average size across a wide range of West Coast fish is down by half from 20 years ago. __________________ Jim / Saba Slayer

01-20-2016, 07:54 PM	#5
Saba Slayer Senior Member Join Date: May 2007 Location: Palos Verdes Posts: 1,857	and... San Diego Coastkeeper says... Here, nature is preserved for everyone to enjoy. In fact, if you are standing at La Jolla Cove looking out, you gaze upon the Matlahuayl State Marine Reserve, one of eleven marine protected areas (MPAs) that grace the coast of San Diego County. You may even spot one of Coastkeeper's MPA Watch volunteers below, walking the high tide line, jotting down tally marks as they take observations of human use activities within the Marine Protected Area. __________________ Jim / Saba Slayer

01-20-2016, 07:59 PM	#6
Saba Slayer Senior Member Join Date: May 2007 Location: Palos Verdes Posts: 1,857	Oh...and this too... San Diego Coastkeeper firmly believes in the importance of MPAs. We heavily participated in the MLPA process and dedicated staff to fight for conservation interests on the Regional Stakeholder Group, whose input ultimately led to the creation of MPA maps for the Fish & Game Commission to consider. Following the completion of the design phase, we continued to advocate for the strongest possible protections for San Diego’s coast. Our education and outreach drew widespread community support including the endorsement of numerous elected officials and business leaders. Over 700 MPA supporters attended a Fish and Game Commission hearing on the issue held in San Diego in 2010. __________________ Jim / Saba Slayer

01-20-2016, 08:36 PM	#7
Saba Slayer Senior Member Join Date: May 2007 Location: Palos Verdes Posts: 1,857	Two sides There are two sides to every story...the review being done on the WSB project is something that was planned years ago by the state as a scientific review to access the project and see if we want to continue with the WSB species or move on to another species or just drop the program. This review is not being done due to problems with the program as the story makes it seem. The review is being done by scientists made up of folks from all over the country. The money that DFW gives the project is from the saltwater stamp that you buy with your license. It was started years ago with the support of the Shedd's at AFTCO primarily to enable the hatchery. The 4000 fish we lost in Redondo was due to a problem with the new desal treatment plant that was built a few yeras ago... It was not the fault of the WSB program... as a matter of fact the DFW considered suing the power plant for the lost fish. Before every release the DFW sends a biologist to sample the health of the fish to be released...so i'm not sure where they got the info about deformed fish. If the fish are unhealthy and a threat to the species they are euthanized. Anyone with a aquarium knows, that once a disease starts, it can spread pretty quickly (especially if you have 3000 to 5000 fish in the system)... So it seems to me that it's in the best interest of the species to euthanize the infected fish...even though it may bother the tree/fish huggers to see them die. I'm not so sure I'd side with all the facts from this article as I think the San Diego Coastkeepers group has their own agenda and it doesn't seem to be too fisherman friendly...much like the Santa Monica "Heal the Bay" folks. I think this writer need to widen his sources. Thanks for the link Mike...it's always good to see what the other side says. __________________ Jim / Saba Slayer Last edited by Saba Slayer; 01-21-2016 at 07:24 AM.

01-21-2016, 09:45 AM	#8
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, 06:13 PM	#9
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, 09:03 PM	#11
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, 12:27 AM	#13
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, 08:11 AM	#14
Saba Slayer Senior Member Join Date: May 2007 Location: Palos Verdes Posts: 1,857	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

01-22-2016, 05:16 PM	#15
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

01-24-2016, 05:01 PM	#16
GregAndrew Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2009 Posts: 2,384	I would guess that only about 1-5% of WSB caught are actually scanned for tags. But let's say it is 20% for arguments sake. That would put the actual catch of tagged WSB at around 100 per year if all were scanned right? Considering the attrition rate of any inshore species before reaching adulthood, I would consider it an accomplishment if the total number of released fish in the coastal population was 1,000 of the 1,000,000 released. Just like Sea Turtles, of the thousands hatched only a handful make it to adult size. If you think that all 1,000,000 were supposed to make it to 50lbers you need to consider the real fish world. Also, the idea that any sickness is going to be transferred from these hatch-lings to the adult population is pretty nearsighted. There will be nearly zero chance of interaction of the juveniles with the adults (except as food). And deformities in fish (except in large size) is like them wearing a sign that says "Eat Me", cause predators key in on differences/weaknesses. Personally, if Hubbs wants to keep funding the rearing and releasing of troubled species, I am all for it.