More from Dr. Brannon,



The Salmon and Steelhead



Hatchery Fish Controversy, Part VIII



Ernest L. Brannon, University of Idaho--March 14, 2005



Hatchery Management Reform





The objective of the series on the hatchery fish controversy has been to provide a perspective on the role of hatcheries in the recovery of salmon and steelhead populations. There is a striking contrast in the viewpoints that we see about hatchery fish in the Pacific Northwest. Some of the opposition to hatcheries is very curious. I understand the dichotomy that is politically driven, and unfortunately has engulfed our natural resources, and I under- stand the largely naïve academic and emotional opposition to hatcheries among those referred to as the green community that object to any alteration of the natural environment. What I don’t understand is the opposition of commercial fishermen and sport-fishing groups such as the Northwest Steelheaders, the ocean trollers and Trout Unlimited, who have clearly benefited from hatchery programs.



The logic of this opposition to hatchery fish is characterized by a recent guest columnist in the Seattle Post-Intelligencer, who wrote: Hatchery fish are more likely to be eaten by predators and get lost in migration and they are less successful in spawning . . .in the wild their progeny are less likely to contribute to the next generation. . . . and by interbreeding with wild fish, harm the species ability to adapt to river and ocean cycles.



Such rhetoric, apart from being in error, obviously misses the point. Hatchery fish can’t be blamed for the mistakes of fisheries management. The culpability for most problems associated with hatchery fish is associated with the decision makers that use hatcheries in their management strategy, as mentioned in article 3. Therefore, the last article in this series is a perspective on the management reforms needed in hatchery programs.



The important point to remember is that hatchery fish represent the genetic legacy of their originating native stocks, and when they are used in conjunction with the wild remnants of their parental population, they can contribute to and assist in maintaining their wild kin. Although rather sophisticated and complex theoretical arguments can be proposed about the risks of artificial propagation, when the evidence is examined for biological meaningful effects, most of the problems with hatchery fish are where, when, and why we put them out in the first place. If artificially propagated fish are released in streams foreign to their origin, out of synchrony with their natural timing, released in large numbers, or released purely for increased harvest opportunity, major problems can be anticipated.



The genetic legacy of these fish is not threatened by conservation hatchery propagation when they are used to supplement their wild counterparts, and if artificial propagation follows the protocol to mimic the wild fish model, hatchery fish can be as successful as wild fish. That is the essence of recovery. Yes, there is a level of risk associated with culture practices that train the fish for the hatchery environment, but if the native timing patterns are maintained in the hatchery population, influences from fish culture are temporary and do not alter behavior of the progeny spawned in the wild. Also, the power and efficiency of natural selection to mold the performance of these fish in the wild should not be underestimated.



The fact that these species do so well when brought into captivity, and then rapidly readjust to the natural environment when released, speaks highly of their innate capacity and flexibility to meet such challenges. Measures can be taken in artificial propagation that buttress the sustaining ability of the wild salmon and steelhead populations. The key is to improve resource management by putting the biological needs of the cultured fish first-place in the management strategy. Attending to the biological needs requires knowledge about the carrying capacity of the system in which hatchery fish are employed, the size and age structure of the population being supplemented, and the timing of the various life history phases.



The brood stock and the breeding protocol followed by the hatchery must be selected to represent the genetic diversity of the target population. The eggs should be incubated in substrate, and rearing protocol should use the wild juveniles as the model for size and time of release to the natural stream. Lower rearing densities, actions to reduce domestication influences, and feeding regimes that fit the seasonal pattern experienced by the wild fish should be employed.



To maximize the performance potential upon release, out-plants of juveniles should not be released at one site, or released in large numbers at any one time. Nighttime releases of fish evacuated of food before hauling should also be part of the standard procedures for direct releases, and where possible acclamation ponds should be built where the fish can recover from the transportation stress and disorientation, and be allowed to emigrate volitionally from the site.



Research also needs to be part of hatchery propagation to resolve the uncertainties associated with the culture environment and to hone the process. Differentiating between domestication and temporary acquired behavior induced by the hatchery environment, and evaluating any affects of that environment, are necessary to improve the technology. New hatchery concepts, such as engineered streams, also need to be assessed as alternatives to standard hatchery designs, where more natural stream-like environments can be developed to accommodate the production of wild-type fish. Decentralization of production and redistributing much smaller facilities to the target streams is also a concept to pursue in future development of the hatchery concept. Using the natal stream as the water source and the sizing the facilities based on the local needs of the target population is the optimal approach in restoration and maintenance of wild salmon and steelhead.



In conclusion, denying hatchery fish from spawning in the wild or approving their extermination is to a disregard their historical lineages and to waste sources of genetic diversity that is important to the sustaining ability and adaptive evolution of the species. The progeny of hatchery fish from the local stock performing in the wild will be indistinguishable from their native counterparts if management addresses the biological requirements needed in the wild. Natural production in the habitat remaining is not sufficient to provide the recreational and commercial harvest fisheries that are important to the fishing public. The challenges of multiple water uses means that we have to manage smarter, and smarter means that we don’t limit our options to use artificial propagation as a tool for the betterment of the salmon and steelhead resources.



Dr. Ernest L. Brannon is a professor at the Center for Salmonid and Freshwater Species at Risk, University of Idaho, Moscow. He is also Chairmen of the Salmon Committee for the Salmonid Foundation.