More controversy over Elwha restoration after dam removal

[Chuck S]

I did read your articles and would like to discuss them: Let's start with this:

I think you missed the point. Yes, we are complaining about non-native stocked fish. In essense an invasive species being introduced by the people responsible for recovery of NATIVE fish. The very methods they are planning on using to restored the Elwha are the very same methods proven to damaged wild runs on most of the northwest's steelhead rivers. We have an opportunity to watch a river that has been for all intent and purpose destroyed by dams recover from that damage. Why proceed with methods known to cause even more damage?

Here's just a problem and I don't blame you for starting this but rather the folks filing the suit who used the same language. While this isn't an outright fabrication, as it's written, it leads one to believe that the new hatchery will be introducing new fish stocks, where, in fact, it's the same stocks they've been using all along. (1) Isn't this the case?

This is from the first article you posted: "The groups say hatchery fish reduce the vigor and survival of fragile runs of native fish, and that the decision to plant nonnative Chambers Creek winter steelhead in the river poses particular risk. " Or your comment, "In essense an invasive species being introduced by the people responsible for recovery of NATIVE fish." As the introductions were made years ago again it seems to be written so to give folks the idea that planting Chambers Creek steelhead is something that is starting with the new hatchery. It does seem a tad bit misleading I think!

On another note, isn't it the case that most hatchery fish return to the hatchery rather than continuing on upsteam? Seems as if this might be a natural way of keeping the Chambers Creek stocks from hampering wild fish recovery. Additionally from a couple other places in similar articles on this I've seen the old adage that hatchery fish have real trouble surviving, much less reproducing in the wild. (2) Do you think this is the case? If it is then there doesn't seem to be much of a problem. (3) If it isn't, then why say something like that?

I did notice the many comments posted on the news site immediately below and following that first article you gave-- were mixed in the pros and cons. Seems as if both groups have good points.