Wild Chrome you may very well be right. In that case the East lewis not having a hatchery would be a prime example of a place to manage as a wild fish river. it's also of interest a Fishing Comservation group of which i am a member proposed the idea of brat rivers and wild rivers WDFW staff over 10 years ago. it was rejected coldly.

here everyone read this...

Hatcheries actually hurt survival of salmon, new study concludes
The Vancouver Sun
Thu 28 Feb 2002
Scott Simpson

In a challenge to conventional views about the value of fish hatcheries, a new report warns hatchery programs are actually wiping out the fish they're trying to save.
Oregon biologist Mark Chilcote reviewed steelhead data on 12 Oregon rivers collected over 26 years and concludes that hatchery fish are poor breeders -- one-third to one-eighth as effective as native fish. They also pass on that deadly trait to their wild cousins as the two groups intermingle on spawning grounds.

Chilcote's work has serious implications in British Columbia where, since the late 1970s, the federal government has spent more than $1 billion on salmon hatcheries. The province has pursued a steelhead recovery program that has failed to keep many south coast and Vancouver Island runs from veering towards extinction.

In a paper to be presented today to the Oregon chapter of the American Fisheries Society, Chilcote warns that the more hatchery fish you put into a system, the faster the native population declines.

"The number of naturally produced fish can be expected to decline as the presence of hatchery fish in the spawning population increases," the paper says.

"The results of this study suggest that naturally spawning hatchery fish, regardless of brood stock origin and quality, are ineffective at producing offspring that survive to adulthood."

For example, he says a population of 300 wild spawners produces more returning adults than 2,400 hatchery spawners.

A draft copy of Chilcote's paper, which is being submitted to the Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, was obtained by The Vancouver Sun.

Chilcote says reacting to lower fish populations by adding more hatchery fish could accelerate the decline because removing more native fish to boost the hatchery population effectively robs the stream of its most proficient spawners.

Chilcote has spend 29 years as a steelhead specialist, geneticist and conservation program leader with the Oregon and Washington departments of fish and wildlife.

His conclusions don't just apply south of the border where indiscriminate breeding programs have used multi-generation hatchery fish to boost waning stocks in troubled rivers -- thereby escalating the threat of breeding failure.

British Columbia's conservative policy of breeding only native fish to create the next generation of hatchery steelhead, annually removing about 10 per cent of a given population, is seen as equally culpable. On a better-than-average Lower Mainland stream with an annual return of 500 steelhead, about 25 breeding pairs of wild fish would be removed each year as hatchery brood stock.

About another 10 per cent of the wild population is lost because of mortal injuries suffered during capture and release by anglers.

Under the B.C. program, anglers are allowed to keep hatchery fish -- identifiable by a clipped adipose fin on their backs -- but must release all wild fish.

Chilcote says native fish captured for hatchery breeding are only marginally more successful than semi-domesticated hatchery fish at propagating themselves -- and neither group is even half as productive as fish that are left in the wild.

On some Lower Mainland and east coast Vancouver Island streams where the wild-capture breeding programs operated, winter steelhead populations have plummeted to less than 20 fish in recent years, forcing long-term angling closures.

On other streams where wild populations were large, such as the 5,000-steelhead Chilliwack-Vedder, the percentage of wild fish withdrawn for hatchery spawning was significantly below 10 per cent and those streams continue to thrive.

B.C. fisheries biologists say some of the decline on smaller streams is due to climate change, although Chilcote says he took climate change into account when calculating the impact of hatchery programs.

A fish and wildlife branch spokesman acknowledged that Chilcote's report raises some troubling questions and noted hatchery programs on some of the worst-hit streams such as the Capilano River have already been cancelled.

"We are going to take it seriously and have a look at it," said fish and wildlife use branch director Don Peterson. "We have our own concerns about the anadromous [seagoing fish] stocking programs and the impact they may be having on wild populations."

Peterson noted the branch is also funding long-term genetic research and alternative enhancement methods such as boosting the nutrient levels in streams in order to make food more abundant for hatchling fish.

Immediately after Chilcote presents his findings, Oregon fish and wildlife colleague Tom Nickerson is presenting a paper suggesting similar problems exist with coho salmon hatcheries.

Chilcote could not be reached for comment but Nickerson said after reviewing coho returns to Oregon streams in the 1990s, it appears hatchery programs are depressing wild salmon stocks.

Nickerson suggests that the release of massive numbers of hatchery coho smolts into Oregon rivers -- as many as a million into a single stream -- attracts exceptional numbers of salmon predators such as seals and seabirds. Wild smolts are among the victims of the subsequent feeding frenzies.

"I found that the more hatchery fish you had, the lower the productivity [of the wild fish]," Nickerson said. "There was a negative relationship with hatchery fish."

Salmon enhancement staff with the department of fisheries and oceans declined to comment on the studies. They have interbred coho and wild salmon in their programs, in a manner similar to that of the Americans.

Habitat and enhancement section spokesperson Carrie Mishima said Chilcote's report on steelhead falls within the provincial government's mandate, and said federal staff want to see Nickerson's full report before commenting on its implications for hatchery coho programs in B.C.

The department has drastically scaled back its salmon hatchery programs in recent years, and spent about $23.5 million in the last fiscal year on programs including hatcheries, community involvement and habitat restoration.

Coho releases from all hatcheries in B.C. in 2001 totalled

4.1 million fry and 11.1 million smolts. These numbers included releases from hatcheries operated by DFO, hatcheries operated under contract to the federal government and hatcheries operated by community groups.

The department has not issued annual reports on the effectiveness of its coho enhancement programs since the early 1990s, and a 1998 Simon Fraser University report on an ongoing coho population crash in B.C., Washington and Oregon says the department has little information about wild stocks off the southern B.C. coast.

However, the report does note a decline in reproductive ability of coho over the last 18 years.

Steelhead Society of B.C. president Scott Baker-McGarva predicts the report will generate controversy because hatcheries generate fish that anglers are able to harvest. He said there is "no doubt" many sport fishing lobbyists will reject Chilcote's conclusions if it means they can no longer keep the fish they catch.

"There is a social argument, and a science argument," Baker-McGarva said.

Steelhead society director Poul Bech, a former fisheries technician who carried out the B.C. government's steelhead enhancement program in the Lower Mainland region, said "this study shows that hatchery programs are often not beneficial and sometimes are actually a detriment to wild steelhead populations."

He said wild steelhead have adapted genetically to survive a variety of challenges in their natal streams, the ocean and along migration routes.

"Climate, ocean and stream conditions are changing at unprecedented rates resulting in potentially dire consequences for steelhead populations," Bech said.

"If wild steelhead populations are to survive over the long term, the priority must be to maximize the adaptive potential of those populations to ensure the best possible chance of successfully adapting to conditions as they change."

Lynn Hunter
Fisheries and Aquaculture Specialist
The David Suzuki Foundation
11-630 Huxley Street
Victoria, BC V8Z 3X8
Phone 250-479-0937
Fax 250-479-9154