Cowlitzfisherman

I will say this first off. We are mainly having a difference of opinion based on philosohical difference not factual ones.

You just want fish to catch. I want wild fish protected no matter what the cost to me as an angler.
I agree genetics has nothing to do with how a fish fights at least in most cases. There are however rivers where the strain of steelhead fight harder that other rivers. I don't believe that has anything to do with hatchery vs wild genetics. For instance all fish seem to fight harder on the Klickitat regardless of their origin. Even the strays in that river seem to fight harder. My first guess would be that it has to do with water temps .

A very good friend of mine has a creek running through his property which is a trib to the Cowlitz. He just did the paperwork to start a hatchbox project on that stream. Ever year he has hatchery strays spawning in there funny with all the hatchery strays spawning there he never has any wild fish. Why do you think that is? Could it be that these hatchery strays spawning in his creek never have any offspring which make it to adult hood?? Absolutely yes!
As an enhancment tool they may be viable. As a restoration tool they have been shown ineffective. It all depends on what you want to accomplish. if all you want is more hatchery fish they are great. if you want to save a run of wild fish you cannot expect them to work.
From the most recent research (wether you believe it or not) it does not matter where you get your broodstock or how you plant them when humans get involved in the breeding and rearing of salmonid species the offspring have very very low reproductive abilities that decrease with each year of artificial propogation. Even the idea of captive rearing is getting debunked. Not by agendized fisheries biologists but by outside geneticists who have no agenda.

There is no way around it loss of natural selection and the process of domestication cause the cycle of increasing deletrious gene flow that makes for poor reproductive ability and survivability in hatchery stocks.
This project on the Upper Cowlitz is great it is also ONE of a kind and will only be proven a success in my book if at some point plants can be halted and the run persists without human intervention (other than fish passage).

I think the only way to save wild steelhead is to protect what we have left. It is impossible to protect what we have left by planting more fish no matter what the broodstock or method of planting.

EVALUATION OF HATCHBOX FRY RELEASE PROGRAM

Solazzi, M.F., T.E. Nickelson, S.L. Johnson, and J.D. Rogers. 1998. Project Number: F-125-R-13. Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, Portland, Oregon.

INTRODUCTION Historical Background and Rationale For Hatchboxes:

The use of coho salmon hatchery fry and fingerling to supplement wild populations has a long history in Oregon coastal streams. However, the evaluation of the success of these programs has been problematic, at best.
Juvenile coho salmon have been released into Oregon streams and rivers since about 1890. Until 1910, all the fish released were unfed fry. Beginning in about 1910 an experiment was set up at Central Hatchery (now Bonneville) to evaluate the effects of pond rearing the fry to a larger size prior to release. Returns of adult fish between 1914 and 1919 were at or near historical levels suggesting that the new rearing strategy was successful. The first coastal releases began about 1890 by R.D. Hume on the Rogue River. His self-proclaimed success led to the development of 10 coastal hatcheries or egg taking stations by 1915. By 1938, over 30 million coho salmon fingerlings and fry were being released into Oregon coastal streams.
By the early 1940s, the first smolt releases (fish larger than 25 fish per pound) were beginning. As the number of smolts released began to increase the numbers of fry and fingerlings released began to decline. The major reason was that larger fish were shown to survive better than fingerlings or fry. Other reasons cited include a major advancement in disease control (pasteurized feed), nutrition, better broodstock development and improved hatchery practices.
During the 1960s and 1970s, the number of adults spawned exceeded the capacity of the available hatchery rearing space, and the excess offspring were released as unfed fry. During this period, the first attempt to evaluate the success of the fry-stocking program was completed. An analysis of the relationship between hatchery coho salmon fry releases and adult escapement (McGie 1980) for the 1961 through 1971 broods, suggested that the release of fry “had no measurable influence on adult escapement.” Fry and fingerling releases subsequently began to decline.
In the early 1980s, a legislatively directed program of presmolt (2000/lb.) releases was initiated. An evaluation of this program (Nickelson et al. 1986) suggested that the increased number of fish released did not result in increased production of adults in streams where the fingerlings were stocked. Because of this evaluation and decreased numbers of excess adult fish returning to coastal hatcheries the number of fry and fingerlings released in recent years has declined.
The Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife began using hatchboxes on a large scale beginning in 1981 with the creation of the Salmon and Trout Enhancement Program (STEP). This program was begun under legislative directive (ORS 496.430 to 496.460). The goal of the STEP program is to restore native stocks of salmon and trout to their historic levels of abundance. One of the techniques used to achieve this goal has been the use of volunteers to raise excess eggs in hatchboxes. ...The unfed fry are then released directly from hatchboxes or transported and released into local streams and rivers in an attempt to bolster depressed stocks. Approval by the Department of Fish and Wildlife for volunteers to obtain eggs from state hatcheries to incubate in hatchboxes is administered under OAR 635-09-090 to 635-09-140. Section one of this rule states that “all projects must comply with fish management goals and objectives as set forth in OAR 635-070-501 through 635-07-830, and species and/or area management plans adopted by the Commission.” It further states that a project will NOT be approved if it is not based on sound biological principles and is not supported by physical and biological stream survey information or if it proposes to use inappropriate methods to accomplish the project objectives.
The Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife will support the use of hatchboxes only in certain areas and under certain specific conditions. The areas where hatchboxes are most likely to be appropriate are streams historically inhabited by the juvenile fish of the species of interest, but where they are not now present. In some cases, hatchboxes are used in areas above artificial barriers that block passage of adult salmonids. Hatchboxes may be used to supplement existing populations only if information from a physical and biological survey of the stream suggests that the local population is extremely depressed and that there is sufficient habitat available to support the hatchbox fry without having a detrimental effect on the local population. Except for small projects that focus on education, releases into a stream is limited to one life cycle of the species. Hatchboxes are an inappropriate tool in areas where the available rearing habitat is already fully occupied by juvenile salmonids, or where the appropriate egg source (brood stock) is not available.
Social interactions between hatchbox fry and native wild fry generally result in displacement of the hatchbox fry into marginal habitats where survival is low, however, some wild fry are also displaced. Evaluations of salmon fingerling releases...suggest that the release of large numbers of fingerlings and fry into coastal streams does not result in increased adult production. Nickelson et al. (1986) documented a detrimental impact on wild adult coho salmon production from fingerling releases, partly because of the use of an inappropriate broodstock that spawned too early.

STEP HATCHBOX EVALUATION
During the early 1980s, we evaluated the effectiveness of using hatchery presmolts to rehabilitate naturally spawning coho salmon populations in coastal streams (Nickelson 1981; Niclelson et al. 1986; Solazzi et al. 1983, 1990). We found that the numbers of juvenile wild coho salmon were reduced in streams stocked with hatchery presmolts. We also found that, although the total number of spanwers in stocked and unstocked streams were similar in the years that the hatchery fish returned, the late-spawning wild adults in the stocked streams were 50% less abundant than in the unstocked streams. We concluded that the hatchery presmolts reduced the wild populations through competition and that the early returning hatchery fish failed to contribute significant numbers of offspring to the next generation. Two factors contributed to this result: 1) early spawning time of the hatchery broodstock, and 2) large size of the presmolts relative to wild fish.
The purpose of the STEP hatchbox evaluation program was to evaluate the effectiveness of coho salmon fry that result from late spawning broodstock incubated in STEP hatchboxes, to rehabilitate wild populations of coho salmon...

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Adult Abundance:
The number of adult coho salmon returning to the study streams during 1985-1987 was not significantly different between the treatment and reference streams. Because there was no difference in adult abundance between the reference and control streams, any differences in juvenile abundance should be due to the effects of stocking the hatchbox fry.
Juvenile Density:
We did not find an increase in juvenile coho salmon density as a result of stocking hatchbox fry for two years in the six study streams.
Results from sampling juvenile coho abundance and outmigration suggest that the hatchbox program was not effective at increasing the rearing density of juvenile coho salmon in the treatment streams. Our estimates suggest that 13% to 26% of the juvenile coho salmon fry stock in Oxbow Creek migrated out of the stream within four days after stocked.

SUMMARY
There is little argument that good artificial incubation techniques can have egg-to-fry survival rates of well over 95%, a significant increase over values reported for naturally incubated eggs. However, there is little evidence that egg-to-fry survival rates are limiting the adult production of most salmonid fishes. (emphasis added) One exception to this may be with chum salmon, which migrate into salt-water almost immediately after emerging from the gravel. For salmonid species with extended freshwater rearing (coho, steelhead, cutthroat, and some chinook stocks) factors other than egg to fry survival rate are probably more important in determining adult production levels. Recent studies by Nickelson et al. (1992) for coho salmon in Oregon coastal streams suggest that winter habitat may often be the limiting factor in the freshwater environment, especially for juvenile coho salmon.

MALE COMPETITION AND BREEDING SUCCESS IN CAPTIVELY REARED AND WILD COHO SALMON

Berejikian, Barry, Skip Tezak, Linda Park, Steve Schroder, and Edward Beall. 1999. American Society of Ichthyologists and Herpetologists AnnualMeeting 1999.Organized by Andrew Hendry and Drew Hoysak. http://www.zoology.ubc.ca/~ahendry/Rssymp.html

ABSTRACT: In the Pacific Northwest, releasing captively reared adult salmon (Oncorhynchus spp.) for natural spawning is an evolving strategy for the recovery of imperiled populations. The ability of captively reared fish to spawn naturally may be compromised by their artificial rearing environments, which differ markedly from those experienced by wild fish. In this study, wild coho salmon (O. kisutch) males dominated access to spawning females in 11 of 14 independent trials. In two cases where satellite males (both captively reared) were observed participating in spawning, DNA fingerprinting results determined that they did not sire any of the progeny. When spawning occurred at night and was not observable, DNA results confirmed continuation of behaviour-based hierarchies determined before nightfall. Aggression data collected during the first hour of competition indicated that dominance was established soon after the males were introduced into a common arena containing a sexually active female. We hypothesize that status signaling and decisions by subordinate males to avoid direct competition may have minimized conflict. The competitive inferiority of captively reared coho salmon in this and a previous study probably reflects deficiencies in culture environments which fail to produce appropriate body coloration, body shape, and perhaps alter natural behavioral development