Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 23
  1. #23
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    1,223
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Nimbus Hatchery Salmon Restoration

    Quote Originally Posted by Nor_Cal_Drifter View Post
    I don't disagree with anything you’ve said. I think the criticism comes from using these projects (like the restoration work in the basin or the new hatchery ladder that will be here “someday”) as excuses to close areas to all fishing. Talk about biting the hand that feeds you. Some of us are a little skeptical that these new restoration efforts have ulterior motives and will lead to more closures. We’ve been burned too many times before..,
    No argument here. Facts are facts. Opinion are opinions. Not my place to tell someone what to think. I feel a lot more needs to be done and fear the slippery slope too.

    Just a limited tolerance for intentional ignorance...

    “Not one fact or data showing they aren’t lying...”

    CLASSIC......
    Last edited by fishwrong2; 09-24-2019 at 06:18 PM.

  2. #22
    Senior Member Nor_Cal_Drifter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    2,105
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Nimbus Hatchery Salmon Restoration

    Quote Originally Posted by fishwrong2 View Post
    I agree. I'm on the side of every little bit helps. There's intelligent debate to be had about the best bang for the dollar, and priorities, but I don't get folks who criticize positive improvements. There is no silver bullet, just bits here and there.

    I agree, spawning beds don't last forever, and have limited effectiveness, but they do help. Trucking smolts in low-water years does contribute to straying, but it's still fish in they system that wouldn't be there otherwise. Hatching extra eggs and using rice-fields to supplement hatchery rearing capacity is positive progress. I'd like to see more innovation, and efforts to transport fish over dams, and smolts back down, and commercial net pen projects on the coast to supplement commercial stocks like they do in Alaska and BC. Push a little bit on all the levers and I think we'll be better off than griping about the little bit of positive progress that gets made. OK, soap-box session over.
    I don't disagree with anything you’ve said. I think the criticism comes from using these projects (like the restoration work in the basin or the new hatchery ladder that will be here “someday”) as excuses to close areas to all fishing. Talk about biting the hand that feeds you. Some of us are a little skeptical that these new restoration efforts have ulterior motives and will lead to more closures. We’ve been burned too many times before..,
    "Many men go fishing all of their lives without knowing that it is not fish they are after." - Henry David Thoreau

  3. #21
    STICK N FISH&FOLD N FOWL honksrworkn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    No Cal .... Between the Sac and Feather ..
    Posts
    455
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Nimbus Hatchery Salmon Restoration

    Here's the deal IMO..... Any of these rivers with hatcheries may as well forget the so called Wild fish myth ... With all the hatchery fish in these systems I'd argue that they are inbred with hatchery fish and its doubtful there are any 100 % pure wild Salmon or Steelhead left in hatchery sustained fisheries..
    Personally I'm sick of loosing great fishing areas due to the so called wild fish myth ... They use it as an excuse to take away areas that were great ..... The hatchery can load these rivers with as many fish as they'd like , they don't but could ..... In reality the so called Wild fish is non existent on hatchery sustained salmon /Steelhead rivers .... So whenever DFW uses the so called wild fish excuse in a closed area its just BS ..... A fish is a fish to me I could care less if its wild or hatchery I just want to be able to fish were the fish are and hate hearing its closed because of the wild fish myth.. I catch and release 98% of the Steelies I catch anyways ... Wild or not .....
    Environmentalist will continue to use this wild fish myth in closing the most productive fishing areas such as the Feather low flow ...
    Not one fact or data to show they're not lying ...cuz they are .... And unfortunately many aren't smart enough to see it and even fewer want to challenge it as I would .. This state is being run by the most irresponsible /deceitful pigs in the country , excpect to loose a lot more until out of power ..... Hopefully it hits stupid in the head and gives them a moment of voting clarity , so they stop shooting themselves in the foot .... continually electing people that screw us all ....
    Let STUPID ... pay for STUPID .... leave us smart ones out of it ....

  4. #20
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    1,223
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Nimbus Hatchery Salmon Restoration

    Quote Originally Posted by Nor_Cal_Drifter View Post
    If you do a search, you'll see numerous suggestions from me over the years. I'll try to summarize a few here:

    - Improved hatchery practices: broodstock program, bumping flows during smolt release, trucking smolts in low water years, using acclimation pens upon release, etc.
    - Increase hatchery production. The river is dammed - natural spawning is severely limited as a result.
    - Enforce the Central Valley Project Improvement Act that requires fishery managers to return the runs to a level at or above their historic levels via hatchery supplementation.
    - Mandate minimum required flows during spawning and out-migration.

    Bottom line = the river has been dammed for decades and the powers that be are still focusing efforts on bringing back natural spawning. I think that's great and I support it as long as we are realistic and admit (1) the river will never be able to support a commercial and/or recreational run of Salmon or Steelhead without hatchery supplementation, (2) there is no such thing as a truly "wild" strain of American River Salmon or Steelhead - they've been inter-breeding with hatchery fish for decades, and (3) we need to spend just as much effort and money on improving hatchery practices and river conditions (e.g. water quality and releases) as we do on these spawning restoration projects.

    I agree. I'm on the side of every little bit helps. There's intelligent debate to be had about the best bang for the dollar, and priorities, but I don't get folks who criticize positive improvements. There is no silver bullet, just bits here and there.

    I agree, spawning beds don't last forever, and have limited effectiveness, but they do help. Trucking smolts in low-water years does contribute to straying, but it's still fish in they system that wouldn't be there otherwise. Hatching extra eggs and using rice-fields to supplement hatchery rearing capacity is positive progress. I'd like to see more innovation, and efforts to transport fish over dams, and smolts back down, and commercial net pen projects on the coast to supplement commercial stocks like they do in Alaska and BC. Push a little bit on all the levers and I think we'll be better off than griping about the little bit of positive progress that gets made. OK, soap-box session over.

  5. Likes Paintguy liked this post
  6. #19
    Senior Member Nor_Cal_Drifter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    2,105
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Nimbus Hatchery Salmon Restoration

    Quote Originally Posted by Shot-Gun View Post
    Complaints about what is wrong without recommendations for better practices are useless.
    If you do a search, you'll see numerous suggestions from me over the years. I'll try to summarize a few here:

    - Improved hatchery practices: broodstock program, bumping flows during smolt release, trucking smolts in low water years, using acclimation pens upon release, etc.
    - Increase hatchery production. The river is dammed - natural spawning is severely limited as a result.
    - Enforce the Central Valley Project Improvement Act that requires fishery managers to return the runs to a level at or above their historic levels via hatchery supplementation.
    - Mandate minimum required flows during spawning and out-migration.

    Bottom line = the river has been dammed for decades and the powers that be are still focusing efforts on bringing back natural spawning. I think that's great and I support it as long as we are realistic and admit (1) the river will never be able to support a commercial and/or recreational run of Salmon or Steelhead without hatchery supplementation, (2) there is no such thing as a truly "wild" strain of American River Salmon or Steelhead - they've been inter-breeding with hatchery fish for decades, and (3) we need to spend just as much effort and money on improving hatchery practices and river conditions (e.g. water quality and releases) as we do on these spawning restoration projects.
    "Many men go fishing all of their lives without knowing that it is not fish they are after." - Henry David Thoreau

  7. Likes Paintguy liked this post
  8. #18
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    1,039
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Nimbus Hatchery Salmon Restoration

    Complaints about what is wrong without recommendations for better practices are useless.
    Fisher of men first, fisher of fish second.

  9. Likes Paintguy liked this post
  10. #17
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    23
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Nimbus Hatchery Salmon Restoration

    All they are accomplishing is making a new place for the fly fisherman to snag fish off reds.

  11. #16
    Senior Member Nor_Cal_Drifter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    2,105
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Nimbus Hatchery Salmon Restoration

    Quote Originally Posted by dsa2780 View Post
    Side channels just create areas for people to rip fish off of redds. They’re also great squawfish habitats. I will be extremely surprised if this area stays open to fishing. Maybe two years before we see another area closure?
    Thats my concern as well. Similar to the basin, these projects are sold as “pro fish” when in reality they are also a way for DFW to close what they consider “problem areas” with little to no public uproar. There’s already a map online showing areas at Sailor Bar where they will place “new spawning gravel.” The map looks eerily similar to those that show “closed to fishing” areas. I hope I’m wrong.
    "Many men go fishing all of their lives without knowing that it is not fish they are after." - Henry David Thoreau

  12. #15
    Senior Member dsa2780's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    38.521164, -121.523538
    Posts
    2,515
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Nimbus Hatchery Salmon Restoration

    Side channels just create areas for people to rip fish off of redds. They’re also great squawfish habitats. I will be extremely surprised if this area stays open to fishing. Maybe two years before we see another area closure?

  13. #14
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Folsom, CA
    Posts
    201
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Nimbus Hatchery Salmon Restoration

    "They are trying to recreate a so called new spawning and rearing area. Including a new side channel through the bar that's parallel to the river, creating a protected area for juvenile fish to grow. Shallow, slower moving water will allow insects and vegetation for feeding, while allowing the fish to hide from larger predators, basically a nursery. They'll need cover and some food to grow large enough to make it out to the ocean."

    The salmon will spawn and the young will be in the side channel. Then in the spring or summer the DWR will drop the flow by 50% and kill the babies. Do I have an accurate idea of what will most likely happen?

  14. Likes BigUnInDaBoat, Trickytrucker liked this post
Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •