Salmo,

Thanks for the reply.


I guess my biggest hangups are the term genetics and what could potentially be the ramifications of acceptance that hatcheries are responsible for producing genetically harmful fish.

Genetics to me means genes and that means base sequences on DNA strands. I just can't fathom how being "fertilized in a bucket" and being raised in a concrete raceway can change the genetic makeup of any of our fish species.

If hatcheries are detrimental to natural fish, and worse to ESA listed stocks, how can we justify their funding and operation, espeially when money is tight. Closing the hatcheries means a severely reduced, or no harvest opportunity, for the average sport fisher, at least no bonk and eat.


I only read parts of the study that were posted on another board, and the reaction by most of the regulars. My main concern is that there seems to be general agreement that "somehow" the genetics of hatchery fish are inferior and passed on to successive generations, thus harmful to natural fish, and a tool that should be curtailed or eliminated. I can buy that natural selection severly reduces the survival rate of hatchery fish when exposed to the natural environment, but isn't that also true for wild\naturally spawning fish? I thought that is why natural spawning fish have such a low rate of return. I like being the consumer that takes a hatchery fish rather than a grebe.

If there is no genetic change, and these genes supposedly controlling behavior (lack of street smarts) were present in the population all along, wouldn't natural selection quickly return the situation back to normal if hatchery fish contaminated natural stocks? If so, then why not increase hatchery production to provide for harvesters and the economic benefits and institute almost universal selective fisheries to rebuild natural runs.