Stlhdh2o,

Your opinion is fine, but you asked for a response, so . . .

This is complex. If it were simple, I think even our inept government might have solved things by now. We're a plurality of people with a plurality of interests, and many of our nearest and dearest interests conflict with one another - sometimes to the point of mutual exclusivity.

The hatchery system exists for two reasons: 1) because fish can be cultured, you can bet someone would decide to do it; 2) hatcheries seemed like a good bet to offset over-fishing. Habitat was still quite pristine on the west coast when hatchery operations commenced. Now we have hundreds of hatcheries . . . in Washington State alone.

It isn't necessary to close every hatchery until it proves itself as not harmful to listed species. That sounds like a simple action, but it would actually be quite complicated. I'll not go into that here. Wherever there are ESA listed fish, hatchery operations must obtain a section 10 permit from NMFS (which is what WDFW hadn't yet done, causing WT to sue them). In that permit, NMFS imposes a series of conditions on the operations of hatcheries, either individually, or collectively for an area or region - like Puget Sound. An interesting note is that 5 of the Puget Sound hatcheries have chinook restoration/recovery as their primary or sole purpose. Closing them would be a serious setback, perhaps ensuring the extinction of some local stocks.

I think a useful evaluation of our state's hatcheries would be an objective audit - if such a thing could exist.

For example, think about how many hatcheries come into existence. A state senator or representative decides a fish hatchery in his or her district (usually at the urging of some special interest) would be a good political trophy. The hatchery might get located on a river that has/had a good wild run. However, the increase in runsize from the addition of hatchery fish causes WDFW to authorize an increased harvest and increased harvest rate to prevent too many excess hatchery fish returning to the hatchery rack. (Excess rack return is always bad political news. The commercial interests complain to their legislator that constituents are missing out on harvesting state-owned salmon. So the legislator directs WDFW (how makes a separate good story) to "improve" management. So higher harvest reduce the hatchery surplus but also over-harvest the wild run, putting it into a spiral toward oblivion. This gets "mitigated" by releasing hatchery surplus fry into the nearly empty natural habitat to try to retain both natural and hatchery production. It usually doesn't work very well, and the river is left mainly with a hatchery population.

Some hatcheries produce fish mainly for a commercial fishery that has become an historical anachronism. Yet it goes on. The lower Columbia River coho fishery fits that catagory in my opinion. Massive releases of hatchery coho and subsequent gillnet fishing particularly have all but extirpated wild coho populations in the Columbia. Yet it goes on. Why? BTW, all those hatchery coho are a major contributor to the Columbia chum salmon being endangered as well.

Not all hatcheries are equal in their performance. Some get perpetually low smolt to recruit survival. They cannot be closed; Mr. Legislator mentioned above won't stand for it because his constituents won't stand for it. Some hatcheries are plagued by water quality problems and fish disease. They might not be economically viable, but there is no standard for economic viability of hatcheries. The range is almost rediculous. I think hatcheries produce adult salmon and steelhead and costs varying from 1 or $2 to $3,000 (admittedly the high end is occupied by Columbia/Snake River mitigation hatcheries wherein most smolts never live to see Astoria.). Does every hatchery make sense, as in serving the public interest? Well, there is no singular definition of the public interest, so there is no simple answer.

Hatchery reform is essential to a balance of natural and artificial production. So far, I'm in the balance ballpark instead of the no-hatchery camp. We need hatcheries to help recover many wild populations (let's not get into the genetics here). And I don't think wild salmon and steelhead will provide significant harvest opportunities until the state's human population gets back down to 2.6 million or less, and it's presently 5.8 and climbing. I'd like to have some fish to eat, and I think that requires a economically viable and biologically effective hatchery program.

Sincerely,

Salmo g.