Just my .02 but here goes-

Lets say for a minute that with the same stock of fish that the hatcheries could get a better return off their investment (time, money,etc.) If this is the case then why not do it? I think for the oregon broodstock program they probably only collect a couple hundred (150?) fish for the program but get a few thousand fish in return. Don't quote me on those figures as I am not exactly sure of the exact numbers but you get the idea.

The broodstock fish are fish that are going to act more like wild fish and bite better, fight better and not to mention there is little or no harm with interbeading if the broodstock fish are no more than one or two generations from the wild stock. The problem with interbreeding now between hatchery fish and wild fish is that the DNA of these two types of fish are so different. If the DNA was the same the impacts of interbreeding would be reduced.

As it is, with the inbred hatchery stocks that are used now in washington, many have not seen any new genes added to the population. I know from my genetics classes and experience here at WSU that when you take a population of anything and reduce the numbers without introducing new genes back into the gene pool, that you eventually lead towards fixation of the gene pool. Hence the reason that many hatchery programs do great the first couple of years and then after a period of time gradually but steadily decline. This is probably why you see in most hatchery systems that the fish are "cookie cutters." When people say that they are clones, in many cases they are probably more correct than one would think. By continually adding new fish to the gene pool every year through collection of wild fish broodstock, the gene pool stays at a proper level of diversity.

Tim Lennox