Discussion the Recent Broodstock Program

Hi Rue:

I didn’t realize you were there.  It was a big meeting and I guess I missed some people.  My eyes aren’t so great anymore.  I also missed Cat, but I remember seeing Fred and I apologize for not mentioning that he was there.  I had to run out during lunch period and didn’t come back until late, so I didn’t have time to chat with him.

Glad you could fill in some details.


PS:  I too am enjoying the huge Laguna Lake.  I wish I could take time to photograph, but that is not in the cards now.  People should get out to take a look before it goes away.


Hello again,

As Brenda said, the meeting yesterday was well attended.  In addition to Tom Roth, Catherine Kuhlman (EO NCWQCB) was there in the morning, but did not stay.  Fred Euphrat also was there for Senator Wiggins.  The room seemed to be mainly filled with fishermen and women (both professional and sport – this is a huge issue for both groups) and some Agency folks.  I picked up extra handouts with the charts and power points if anyone wants to see them.  One of the presenters said they would see about providing some of the information on line – but I don’t know if that was resolved.  I was not able to stay the entire day, either.

The presentation focused primarily on the Klamath and Sacramento areas – but the data and approach were relevant locally.

As has been stated – the broodstocks are not the ultimate solution.  Without the habitat – even they won’t be any kind of bridge.  And that was made clear by the loss statistics that were presented.  Someone even mentioned the folly of releasing fish en masse to the bird feeding frenzy.  The immediate loss is horrendous.

It is good the the media covered some of it – at least it begins to get into the public eye.

The Laguna is big and broad – and slow.  Terrific!  We are getting recharge.  I loved the “discovery” that the Laguna might be prime for fishery habitat if restored appropriately (that was a study revealed at the Laguna Stakeholders’ meeting last week)

Have a great wet week. Rue


Hi everyone:

I went to part of a meeting yesterday with all the fishing folk.  I didn’t know anyone there (except Tom Roth).  Wanting to hear what they had to say, I stayed several hours.

There was a lot of information about numbers of fish (no talk of Russian River watershed, but mostly Sacramento, San Joachim Valley area, and Klamath), including break downs by life stages, a lot of information about hatcheries and the various programs to breed fish, but much less talk about habitat conditions and what to do about them.  It was very obvious to me that the years with large numbers of fish (NOT the last two) were also very wet years.  There seemed to be a high correlation between flows and numbers of fish.  After I made that silent observation, a few presenters mentioned it in their talks.

The main focus seemed to be on whether professional fisherman should give up on this season and let the fish recover more.  There was some resentment that recreational fishermen are still allowed to take a few fish.  (How in the world does that get enforced?

There was talk about genetic mixing.  They are trying to avoid that, but I wonder how successful they are.  By far, the greater numbers of fish examined seem to be hatchery fish.  There was talk about release of fish and how, even if the eggs are taken from somewhere else and fertilized, if they get released in the wrong place, the fish still go back to where the parents came from. (I think that’s what I heard them say.)  That’s absolutely amazing.  Here are these magnificent creatures who are so strong and smart and look what we are doing to them.  (There was a picture of one fish who was almost as big as the man holding him.  I didn’t realize they could be so large.  They said they put him back in the water.

There was even one guy who complained about wastewater discharges and toxins (something I almost never hear from fisherman and fishing agencies).  He said that many utilities have switched from chlorine to chloramine and a lot more fish seemed to be dying as a result.

There was talk about whether toxins get regulated and how and someone (from Fish and Game?) explained about Reg. Bd. regulations about discharge.  I don’t think any one was there from the Regional Board.  (It was my impression that chlorine chemicals and by products have to be taken out of the wastewater before discharge.  Isn’t that true?  Maybe it’s not being enforced everywhere.

I had to miss the part about ocean conditions.  It was an all day meeting and I had another meeting to go to.

Some of you may have gleaned more information from the meeting than I did (had you been there) but nevertheless, the writing in on the wall.  I totally agree with Alan about broodstock programs.



The Broodstock program should only be recognized as a stop gap and desperate effort to deal with our failure to protect essential habitat for salmonid survival.

The more you depend on programs, like the Broodstock program, the more you are admitting to the desperate nature of the situation.

If the habitat values, including flow, are not there there is little hope of long term survival or recovery for salmon species.  You can place those breeder fish in the stream – but they will not survive through generations.

If there is habitat, stray and colonizing fish will show, survive, and flourish.

It is a simple as that.




Interesting local report. However, one gets the impression that the cohos survival all depends on the broodstock efforts. Where is the investigative report on following up on the problems mentioned at the beginning of the report–water levels, pollution, dams?  Now that would be a story!



Hey Ya’ll, I was sent this TV news segment on the Russian River Coho Captive Broodstock Program at Warm Springs…have a look!