Laterun,

I too hear and FEEL the frustration in your post. I also don’t claim to be a fishery biologist (though at one time that was my goal). I can’t even claim to be one of the most intelligent sport fishers on this board. As far as biology goes, my knowledge is confined to basic AP high school and beginning college biology classes (Mendel 101) I suspect that is at least as good as most here, so most likely many have the same questions as I do.

As a sport fisher, I would like the politicians, managers and biologists to get their act together, so I can go out catch some fish, bonk and eat them (My interest is as a natural human predator in the natural system, and given the state of the habitat, the prospect of no hatcheries scares me) I have read every word on this thread and many similar others on this board and a couple of others, with the intention of trying hard to understand where our biologists and advocates are coming from. Yet there some things that I can’t quite grasp, and I have couple of questions for the real resident biologists, managers and folks way more intelligent than I will ever be.

Are people, and/or their studies, claiming that fish being raised in a hatchery are affected at in intercellular level with different DNA sequencing (due to the fact that they are artificially fertilized and raised in a hatchery?

It seems that I hear people saying that somehow hatcheries ARE affecting the actual DNA of fish that is then being passed on to both future hatchery generations and natural stocks that by chance are contaminated by their seed. My understanding is that DNA is comprised of the amino acid sequences A,G,H and C. The genetic code for any trait is made up the sequence of these and is replicated through Meiosis in reproduction and Mitosis in growth. Genetic mutations result in the change of amino acid sequences and result in different DNA at the intercellular level and at the Meiosis level. Phenotype manifestations are a result of different genotype sequencing, so would still require intercellular changes.

How does the physical conditions of a hatchery affect these chemical DNA changes? Even if one can concede that mutations are occurring from chemical usage (hormones etc), this is a hatchery practice that can be changed, not necessarily an inherent hatchery flaw.

I can accept that hatchery fish raised in the absence of natural predators or fluctuating natural conditions may have substantially reduced survival rates, but isn’t this a learned behavior? If so, how can they pass a non chemical, learned behavioral trait to their offspring ?

Darwin, made the hypothesis that Natural Selection, or survival of the fittest, selects those most equipped for survival to best reproduce and therefore pass on their genetic traits to succeeding generations, chemical DNA traits. These changes are the result of many generations of selection. There are some instinctual behaviors, nest building in birds as an example, but does it really make sense that these behaviors are learned and passed on in the historical course of our hatchery programs, maybe a hundred years at best? It took eons for nature to affect such changes, do we really think we have that ability?

It seems to me that as we try to correct the mistakes of the past and grasp for straws, we need to be careful of not throwing out the baby with the bath water. I want to be able to go out and catch fish and bring them home and eat them! At 50 years old, I can’t wait for several generations for this to be corrected. That is my/our interest as natural human predators, as sport fishers. I don’t see how we can do this if we don’t have hatcheries.

Why does any of this really matter?

It seems that there are some, conservationists and animal rights activists that would have us close down hatcheries and reduce or eliminate our ability to harvest fish in the name of rebuilding the natural runs or protecting ESA stocks. If they are wrong in their interpretation of these “studies” and hatcheries are not evil, then we can produce fish for our harvest (have our fish and eat them too) and still use the best science (selective fishing and hatchery/artificial boosting of natural stocks) to improve, restore, or at least save natural (ESA) runs. There may in fact be many ways to enhance our fishing ability and preserve natural runs. Our sport fisher representatives have to be knowledgeable to represent our interests and the rest of us need to do what we can to both select those representatives and influence political decisions in our favor.

If these studies are right, and hatcheries do cause actual DNA change, then we need to ensure that hatchery fish do not mix with natural stocks. (we may have to close down hatcheries and/or harvest ALL hatchery fish) This also could mean that only those with financial means who can drive all over the State to fish non-threatened stocks get to fish, and I will have to learn to like farm raised salmon and golf.

Sorry for the long post, I got carried away.