I would just be happy catch and releasing wild fish for the rest of my days and eat salmon when they are abundant However, I always hear about hatchery fish having a negative affect on wild populations. While I'm sure this is true especially when a foreign strain is planted, it seems to me that when wild broodstock is planted then the progeny from those wild fish fair much better in their native basin. I can see how true wild juveniles born in the gravel would have to compete with planted juveniles for food and genetic diversity would weaken with every generation but there is one river I have to point out that when this subject comes up I have mentioned a couple of times but no one has responded. I have fished the Vedder R. for years and can honestly say that despite the fact that they have a broodstock program in place (and have for many moons) and despite the worst crowding you will ever see (except the cowlitz) Iv'e witnessed some of the healthiest wild steelhead populations year in and year out. They must be doing something right, something that we in the states are not. The wild population up there far outnumbers the hatchery component, as a matter of fact I would venture to say that for every 10 wild steelhead you catch you may get only 1 hatchery fish some seasons. For every brood year wild fish are caught by hatchery personell and used for spawn. Never do they use hatchery fish for broodstock.

Anywho.... I'm not advocating infiltering all of our rivers with broodstock programs but I thought I would hopefully get someones attention as to why the Canadians can pull this off and we haven't been as successfull. Oh yeah, it's a foregone conclusion that no one is allowed to kill wild fish in Canada except for first nations ofcourse.


Crap... I just realized I wrote this whole damn response on the wrong thread. Supposed to be on the wild steelhead petition thread. I'm too tired to rewrite everything. Maybe one of the mods can move my post over to the right one. Good night.