TR: Monster Steelhead

Charlie Choc wrote:
On Sat, 07 Feb 2004 08:57:58 GMT, Chas Wade
wrote:

so I used the 200mm zoom and
had to shoot at 1/40 second.

That's a steady hand, Chas. Great shot. What kind of lens is it?

Thanks Charlie, that's my work horse, Nikkor 28-200 zoom.

Chas
remove fly fish to reply
http://home.comcast.net/~chas.wade/w...ome.html-.html
San Juan Pictures at:
http://home.comcast.net/~chasepike/wsb/index.html

Yuji Sakuma wrote:

Hello JR,

I am not sure that I understand the reasons for your opposition to trying to
restore disappearing natural runs with hatchery fish. These days, I
understand that hatchery stock, in order to maintain the purity of the gene
pool for a given river, is produced using eggs and milt from wild fish
returning to that river . From what I hear, hatchery fish do have a higher
early mortality than stream bred fish because despite having the same genes,
they will be less well adapted to wild conditions initially. However, if
they do manage to survive say, a year, it seems to me that they should be
the same in every way as stream-bred fish of the same age. Am I missing
something here? Sure, I too would like to see steelhead runs restored by
returning the environment to what it was a couple of centuries ago but let's
face it, that's not going to happen.


There are places where what you say is true and that if runs are to be
reestablished, hatchery fish must be used. However, there are many
places where natural fish can re-establish healthy runs on their own.


Using the milt and eggs from the wild fish returning to the river is the
best way if man must interfere. However, since man is choosing which
fish will have offspring, instead of the environment, we are likely to
be inadvertently selecting for specific traits. Because such an
unnaturally high number of artificially inseminated eggs will survive,
far fewer fish are needed and are being chosen to contribute to the gene
pool. Since many fish in the stocking would have died in the wild for
one reason or another before they would have reached "stocking" size,
the selection bias is even more pronounced.

Willi

Chas Wade wrote:

"bruiser" wrote:

Great stuff Chas. Maybe you could post a pic to your site for those
of us
who are "abpf challenged".



I've posted it on PhotoSig, try this:
http://www.photosig.com/go/photos/view?id=1148371


Thanks Chas. Now I see what everyone was raving about great picture,
even better in conjunction with your story.

Willi

"Yuji Sakuma" wrote:
Hello JR,

I am not sure that I understand the reasons for your opposition to
trying to
restore disappearing natural runs with hatchery fish. These days, I
understand that hatchery stock, in order to maintain the purity of the
gene
pool for a given river, is produced using eggs and milt from wild fish
returning to that river . From what I hear, hatchery fish do have a
higher
early mortality than stream bred fish because despite having the same
genes,
they will be less well adapted to wild conditions initially. However,
if
they do manage to survive say, a year, it seems to me that they should
be
the same in every way as stream-bred fish of the same age. Am I
missing
something here? Sure, I too would like to see steelhead runs restored
by
returning the environment to what it was a couple of centuries ago but
let's
face it, that's not going to happen.


Yuji,

JR is right on the money here, but you are too. The problem os that
only some of the hatcheries actually take wild fish for their brood
stock. Most of the rivers have two distinct runs of fish, the early
run is the hatchery fish, they are smaller, and the descendants of
hatchery fish first introduced from other rivers many years ago. The
later run natives are the vestige if the original stock and need to be
protected.

In a few instances hatcheries have converted to supporting the native
fishery, and in most of those cases they don't mark the smolts before
releasing them so we see them as natives when they return.

Thanks for asking some good questions,

Chas
remove fly fish to reply
http://home.comcast.net/~chas.wade/w...ome.html-.html
San Juan Pictures at:
http://home.comcast.net/~chasepike/wsb/index.html

On Sat, 07 Feb 2004 17:58:17 GMT, Chas Wade
wrote:

Thanks Charlie, that's my work horse, Nikkor 28-200 zoom.

I've been looking at that lens, as well as the Tamron 28-300 XR. I've
seen some shots taken with it that are really nice too. I want to get
something with a little more 'reach' than my 24-85mm Nikkor for when I
go out west this summer.
--
Charlie...

On Sat, 07 Feb 2004 08:57:58 GMT, Chas Wade
wrote:

My son Andy always seems to catch the biggest fish. He's also a
fearless wader. Imagine someone who wades like Warren, but is 6 foot 3
inches tall.
[snipped fantastic action sequence]
I've posted the picture
to ABPF. It's not one of my clearer pictures, but I was across the
river, unwilling to attempt the crossing, so I used the 200mm zoom and
had to shoot at 1/40 second. This is the best shot of 10.

Legendary!

That's a terrific photo, Chas. The look on Andy's face is priceless. The
fish isn't too shabby, either.

-----------------------------------------------------
Cut "to the chase" for my email address.

On 2004-02-07 11:04:31 -0700, Chas Wade
said:

"Yuji Sakuma" wrote:
Hello JR,

I am not sure that I understand the reasons for your opposition to
trying to
restore disappearing natural runs with hatchery fish. These days, I
understand that hatchery stock, in order to maintain the purity of the
gene
pool for a given river, is produced using eggs and milt from wild fish
returning to that river . From what I hear, hatchery fish do have a
higher
early mortality than stream bred fish because despite having the same
genes,
they will be less well adapted to wild conditions initially. However,
if
they do manage to survive say, a year, it seems to me that they should
be
the same in every way as stream-bred fish of the same age. Am I
missing
something here? Sure, I too would like to see steelhead runs restored
by
returning the environment to what it was a couple of centuries ago but
let's
face it, that's not going to happen.


Yuji,

JR is right on the money here, but you are too. The problem os that only
some of the hatcheries actually take wild fish for their brood stock. Most
of the rivers have two distinct runs of fish, the early run is the hatchery
fish, they are smaller, and the descendants of hatchery fish first
introduced from other rivers many years ago. The later run natives are the
vestige if the original stock and need to be protected.

I don't think the problem is that hatchery steelhead (bred from wild stock)
have inferior genetics at conception. They have the same genetics as wild
fish. The problem is that they're raised "in bulk," protected from the
vissicitudes of nature, such as predators, weather, and disease, until
they're smolts., and then they're released. They haven't gone through the
culling that they're wild cousins endure, so they have inferior genetics
when they're released.

IMO, of course. I'm just an armchair fisheries biologist. :-)

-----------------------------------------------------
Cut "to the chase" for my email address.

rw wrote:

I don't think the problem is that hatchery steelhead (bred from wild
stock) have inferior genetics at conception. They have the same genetics
as wild fish.


They do have different genetics from wild fish because we're choosing
which fish will reproduce instead of nature. It's as close as we can get
to reproducing what would have ocurred naturally, but the genetics
aren't the same.

Willi

Willi wrote:


rw wrote:

I don't think the problem is that hatchery steelhead (bred from wild
stock) have inferior genetics at conception. They have the same
genetics
as wild fish.


They do have different genetics from wild fish because we're choosing
which fish will reproduce instead of nature. It's as close as we can
get
to reproducing what would have ocurred naturally, but the genetics
aren't the same.

This is certainly a grey area Willi, but I know of one recent study
that supports what you're talking about. It seems that in the wild a
large majority (90% I think) of the fertilized chinook eggs were
fertilized by jacks. I've seen video of the jacks sneaking in and
going the deed right under the big bucks. In a hatchery they take a
big buck and use his milt to fertilize the eggs from several hens in a
bucket.

Monday I watched the guys at the Cascade River steelhead hatchery
stripping the eggs from a dozen 3 to 5 pound steelhead into a bucket,
and then collecting the milt from a few bucks in a zip lock bag. The
hatchery fish on this river are all small and return early. I don't
know, but I think they're Skamania river fish. The Skamania is about
300 miles away and dumps into the Columbia. Eggs from that hatchery
represent most of the steelhead in the midwest, and also most of the
hatchery fish in the northwest.

Chas
remove fly fish to reply
http://home.comcast.net/~chas.wade/w...ome.html-.html
San Juan Pictures at:
http://home.comcast.net/~chasepike/wsb/index.html