Genetics would dictate any differences between hatchery and wild fish would depend on the parents of said fish. If we're talking about a hatchery stock descended from fish not native to the stream in question (as is the case with many hatchery stocks) then there is a world of differnce genetically speaking. To assert otherwise is just completely ridiculous.

Furthermore, if what S. malma says is true that the first generation hatchery fish spawned from wild native fish perform very poorly relative to their wild cousins, then there appears to be a diffence in terms of fitness and therefore genetics (unless you want to invoke some sort of magically thinking here). This probably has something to do with a lack of selection for most of their freshwater life.

The question that I have is what is the difference between wild and hatchery fish for species like chum and pink salmon where there is no signifcant rearing period in the hatchery. Do they display reduced fitness like stealhead, coho and chinook reared in hatcheries? They spend almost no time in the hatchery after hatching.

My guess would be that this hatchery vs wild genetics thing is a big deal for fish that rear a long time in the hatchery (ie coho, chinook, and steelhead), but not such a big deal for fish that are just hatched and then released into the wild (ie chum, pinks, and sockeye). Anybody know about this?


If this is true, then the proposed policy of equating wild and hatchery fish (thus putting them on the spawning bed together) will probably not hurt wild pinks, chum or sockeye, but may well be devastating for wild chinook, coho, and steelhead.

Just my $0.02