All hatchery fish do not need to die as some have formerly thought and promoted. The thought that hatchery fish are bad has ruined many of our fishing opportunities. Hopefully those folks will admit that they are wrong and work to restore the hatchery production.
On another note it looks like WFC is working to shut down Reiter and the Green along with all other puget sound summer steelhead. I wonder if the steelhead fishermen will step up to fight back or if they will just let another fishery go.


https://www.oregonlive.com/sports/oregonian/bill_monroe/2018/12/hatchery_steelhead_didnt_affec.html

If history is any indication they will just let another fishery go. There’s nothing that can be done except voice concern to deaf ears The Commission know the recreational community has no leverage.

The WFC will win the hearts of the superficial uninformed cuban smokin dumb asses again with their fancy emails about saving the environment and freeing Willy, meanwhile WFC will be concocting their tried and true recipe of 6o day notice intent to sue WDFW in order to profit scenario while their pied piper dumb !@%# idiots take the bait like a planter trout on the last saturday in April. Whos fricken tired of this nonsense? Whos gonna sue WFC for loss of fishing seasons for how many years? Who will listen to this science that weve been hearing for long enough that you cant blanket cast every hatchery program to hell because its the popular "environmental" way to witch hunt? Give me a damn break! With the issues Puget Sound faces with comorants, sealions, pullution etc these poor fish face, the ass hats really have to keep pointing the finger at hatchery production as the cause? Take a look at your damn self you greedy bastards! You hypocrites should be driving all electric cars, solar energizing and giving to the poor! Shame on you for profitting and making your living at the expense of every sportsman in the PNW when the real picture is above the rubber of your prius drivin self serving bastage selves! Rant over.... sick of it all!

WDFW and the State have only itself to blame. You can't be sued (or shouldn't settle) if you're not at fault. WFC finds low hanging fruit and takes advantage of it. The shame is on the WDFW attorney, Mike Grossmann...but we all know what his priorities are!

The article in the link refers to a specific case on Oregon's Clackamas River. The hatchery summer steelhead don't impact wild winter steelhead in the upper Clackamas for a very simple physical, not genetic, reason. The wild winter steelhead are passed upstream of the dam to migrate and spawn naturally. The hatchery summer steelhead are stopped at the dam and prevented from migrating and spawning in the upper river. The summer runs that are not caught in the recreational fishery may in fact spawn in the river downstream of the dam. And that spawning activity might have a negative impact on wild steelhead that spawn downstream of the dam. But we don't know because the effects of hatchery steelhead on wild steelhead downstream of the dam were not studied.

It's important to read information and analyze it carefully. What this study tells us is that we can have successful hatchery and wild steelhead programs when the two stocks are kept separated from spawning in the same area. It doesn't tell us a thing about whether the hatchery and wild populations can co-exist in the same habitat at the same time without any ill effects to either population. That is a related, but distinctly different, subject. And that relates directly to the hatchery summer steelhead programs on the Sky and Green Rivers (and Stillaguamish).

Salmo g. for the WIN!

Agree with cobble.
Eyefish and Salmo G for the LOSS . I cannot understand how someone with education cannot understand basic science. It must be your pride that keeps you on the same path and unable to change.

Salmo G please actually take time to read the article before commenting on it. I used to respect your knowledge of Fisheries but it is obvious that you did not read this article as this study was conducted after the termination of the upriver summer run program. Yes this is above the North Fork dam in the upper Clackamas. That run was terminated in 2001 because of people like you who say that Hatchery fish are bad for wild fish. At least in this case the summer run fish did not affect the wild winter fish at all. Do you really think that the scientists that published this article would have been as stupid as you are in thinking that the fish are completely segregated and have no effect on each other? If you are so against hatchery fish a better argument would be run timing and location. Both of those are pointed out in the research article which is not as biased as the two of you are. Your comments and the eyeFish comments just go to show how biased the two of you are against Hatchery fish. You two should take some responsibility for the decline of Hatchery fish as you all have continued to promote that Hatchery fish are bad based on a poorly conducted study done in Oregon approximately 30 years ago. My guess is that the two of you will be too proud to admit that you never read the article and that you are wrong.

Why do you guys who actually know something even bother debating this guy? Pretty clear he's not keen on learning anything... And why should he be? It's clear he already knows everything (that he wants to know).

For Christ's sake, Elijah - learn some humility. Without that, you're just a troll.

That is helpful flyflicker. Typical response of fly fishermen. If you read your own post you might realize how much of a hypocrite you are. But I also doubt that you are able to realize that. How about you bring something worthwhile to the table instead of trolling me because you were proved wrong in another post. How about you read the study and tell me what your thoughts are on it? My guess is that you are too lazy to do it or not smart enough to comprehend it.

I hesitate to insert myself into this conversation for two reasons:
1. I'm not a biologist and therefore probably don't even know the questions to ask.
2. I have no dog in this particular hunt.

The study (or Bill's synopsis) is interesting for sure. It reinforces one of my beliefs that habitat is a very critical part of the equation. As long as there is enough spawning beds and feed for the newly hatched fish, there should not be a problem with summers and winters spawning in the same stretch of river. Now, a wild run of summers or a hatchery run of winters in this stretch of water may yield different results.

Right on Danny pretty much says it all

No hatcheries anywhere in site here!

https://hashilthsa.com/news/2018-12-10/t...-winter-anglers


From a once prolific world class wild steelhead fishery to nearly extinction in what seems like no time flat! Predators and logging reaping great havoc.

Go gettem WFC!

Salmo G and eyefish -- always appreciate both of your posts and insights. You both may want to take a closer look at the study on the upper Clackamas. It looked back at the impact of hatchery summer steelhead on wild winter steelhead at a time when hatchery summer steelhead were planted above the dams. While Salmo G you are correct that hatchery summers are now planted below the dams and are effectively physically segregated from the wild winters above the dam, the study was looking back to assess the impact of summers when they were planted above the dams and whether eliminate of summers above the dams increase productivity of wild winters above the dams. Significantly, the study comes to a different conclusion than a previous, and widely sited, study by Kostow et al. that found plants of hatchery summers were having a negative impact on wild winters based on ecological rather than genetic factors. It's an important study, especially coming at a time when some other upper Willamette summer run programs HGMPs are under review. It may be relevant as well to discussions regarding the impacts of Puget Sound hatchery summer run programs. Unlike some of the Puget Sound streams (e.g., Deer Creek, N.F Skykomish, Tolt), however, the upper Clackamas to my knowledge did not have a native run of summer steelhead.

Thank you Brian. It will be a hard pill for Salmo, eyefish, and fleaflick to swallow that they are wrong. I doubt that all three will admit it. Maybe Salmo but not the other two. They have been brainwashed by the department and have another agenda to promote.
Another study that could also be easily done in similar fashion to this one is the impact of winter hatchery steelhead on wild winter steelhead for the Nisqually and Puyallup Rivers since those hatcheries were shut down. The wild fish populations there have not come back. Neither have they on the Sauk.

Bottom line: I would argue that hatchery fish are not to blame for the decrease in wild fish. We just need some artificial selection taking place in the hatcheries to keep up with the wild natural selection taking place in the rivers.

The two studies can actually be complementary and not in conflict. The was a problem when the Summers were passed. When they were stopped being passed, the problem went away. The system, any system, has a capacity for smolt production. The summers displaced some winters.

ODFW did a similar, but reverse, study down in southern OR. They passed winters (I think wild) above a natural barrier. Summers were the only salmonid able to naturally pass by. The winters were "successful" in spawning and reduced the summer population. After stopping the passage of winters, the summers rebounded.

In order to be successful, a hatchery steelhead has to adapt to a significantly different environment. They are incubated and reared in warmer water, they are reared in "pools" and "runs" (rearing ponds and raceways) that are not the natural choice of riffles, the are reared at high densities, they are fed food from the surface. All of these actions select for a fish that is genetically and behaviorally different. That is why they need to be segregated from the wild.

The last study, as Salmo noted, shows that you can have both types of fish (hatchery and wild) in a system so long as you keep the spawners separate. Management agencies don't want to invest in the infrastructure necessary to do that. It would also mean that hatchery programs would operate above or below waterfalls/barriers.

I don't know Salmo G or eyefish personally, but judging from their posts through the years, I don't think either one have been brainwashed by anyone, and the only agenda I've seen on these pages is to critically discuss issues pertinent to fisheries management and conservation. One last thing, while the study is important, please keep in mind it's just one study in a growing body of scientific literature on the subject of hatchery impacts on wild populations.

"The two studies can actually be complementary and not in conflict. The was a problem when the Summers were passed. When they were stopped being passed, the problem went away. The system, any system, has a capacity for smolt production. The summers displaced some winters."

Carcassman -- actually, this is not what the Courter study concluded at all. Here's a link to it. https://afspubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/tafs.10140. The Courter study found that hatchery summer steelhead planted in the upper Clackamas above the dams did not have a negative effect on wild winter steelhead productivity above the dams. I'm not qualified to evaluate the methods used to reach this conclusion, but that's what the study says. The Courter study also says its results and conclusions contradict those reported in the Kostow study, so I don't see the two studies as reaching complementary conclusions as you suggest.

I have tried to key my thoughts to the 3 points selected from Salmo g.'s post that I have partially quoted above:

1. I agree with Salmo g. here. This is a specific case where most of the fish from the hatchery program were separated from the natural winter population either by removal at the dam or because most of the summer steelhead hatchery smolts were released in lower portions of the mainstem. Quoting from the report: Separation in spawn timing and location may explain why the presence of large numbers of summer steelhead did not reduce the productivity of adult winter steelhead...Additionally, releases of summer steelhead hatchery smolts tended to occur at lower elevations in the main-stem Clackamas River, while winter steelhead likely spawned further upstream in the basin and largely in tributaries to the main stem. If hatchery summer steelhead spawned at lower elevations proximate to their release sites, this may have limited their ecological interactions with winter steelhead because naturally produced juvenile summer steelhead were inhabiting areas downstream of the most productive winter steelhead rearing habitat.

2. I agree with Salm g. here as well: His point here is correct in that the only population abundance information that is considered in the analysis for both hatchery summer runs and naturally produced winter runs is derived from counts at the dam. No abundance information about interaction of the hatchery program on any natural production below the dam is possible without abundance information from below the dam. Very simple.

3. Again, I agree with Salmo g.: These populations were fairly well segregated both by removal of adults at the dam and through selection of release location, thereby reducing the number of effective hatchery spawners. Again from the report: Additionally, releases of summer steelhead hatchery smolts tended to occur at lower elevations in the main-stem Clackamas River, while winter steelhead likely spawned further upstream in the basin and largely in tributaries to the main stem. David et al. (2018) found that 68% of winter steelhead spawners entered upper Clackamas River tribu-taries, but only 23% of hatchery summer steelhead were released in upper Clackamas River tributaries during the augmentation program (ODFW, unpublished data).

The major point here as Salmo g. tries to point out is that the results of this study are for the specific case of the Clackamas River and the hatchery program that was occurring in the Clackamas River not for all rivers and programs. He seems to make that pretty clear - "What this study tells us is that we can have successful hatchery and wild steelhead programs when the two stocks are kept separated from spawning in the same area. It doesn't tell us a thing about whether the hatchery and wild populations can co-exist in the same habitat at the same time without any ill effects to either population. That is a related, but distinctly different, subject. And that relates directly to the hatchery summer steelhead programs on the Sky and Green Rivers (and Stillaguamish)."

What it does not tell us is what some posters, such as Elijah, say it does - "...that hatchery fish are not to blame for the decrease in wild fish."

As I final thought, I'm pretty sure that the authors, although they concluded that this particular program did not have an effect on this particular population, would also not conclude that no hatchery programs has a negative effect on natural production. They certainly had that opportunity to say that in their discussion, but didn't do so. Instead they concluded the paper by pointing out the need to look at specific situations (like Salmo g. does, by the way), calling for studies that "directly quantify the effects of hatchery fish on the production of natural-origin salmon and steelhead," "empirically test published theories about mechanisms of hatchery fish impacts on natural-origin populations" and "document population responses to major changes in hatchery programs."

They clearly did not jump to the conclusion that no hatchery program has a negative effect on natural populations.

Can't speak for eyeFISH or Salmo g., but for my part, you're correct in that I won't admit I'm wrong; not because I'm too proud, lazy, or stupid, but because I don't believe I am. The example of the Clackamas maybe compelling, but it's far from confirmation that the solution to our woes is to plant more hatchery steelhead everywhere.

I can cherry pick studies, too, but I don't think that's a very honest or productive way to review science holistically.

For the record, while I do believe hatchery introgression is generally detrimental to wild stocks, mostly due to our understanding that hatchery steelhead are horribly inept wild spawners, I don't believe it's anywhere near the threat groups like WFC make it out to be. I'm no fan of WFC and their bent on closing fisheries, so on that, I think we can agree. I also enjoy a chunk of hatchery steelhead on my plate from time to time, so I'm no wholesale hater of hatchery fish. Seems we could agree on that, too.

Thing for me is, even if there are examples like the Clackamas where mixing hatchery and wild fish hasn't led to meaningful introgression, we know introgression is a negative stress on wild gene pools in general, so we ought to try and prevent it.

So where do we go from here? There seem to be only two schools of thought: Quit producing hatchery steelhead and close fisheries, or plant the hell out of every flowing stream with hatchery smolts and let's all go fishin.' I personally don't think either of those is a reasonable approach. I feel like we need to identify 1-2 streams in each WDFW region in which no viable runs of wild steelhead exist, plant the holy heck out of them, and manage them for hatchery production and harvest fisheries. That keeps more people fishing and (occasionally) catching our state fish, and that's the outcome I would most like to see.

Is my idea realistic, possible, and sustainable? Probably not, no matter how much I wish it were. See my point?

The Courter study authors indeed suggest that temporal and spatial separation may explain why they found a lack of impact on the natural-origin winter population. However, this separation was not dam-related. The Courter study focused only on the upper Clackamas Basin above N.F. Dam, and the study looked back to a time when hatchery summer steelhead were planted in the mainstem above the dam, and both hatchery summer steelhead and natural-origin winter steelhead were passed above the dam. Thus, my main reason for responding to Salmo g's post was to point out that the study's findings cannot be attributed to removal of hatchery summer runs at the dam. The temporal and spatial separation discussed by the authors is due to factors other than a physical barrier. One last thing, when the Courter authors indicate hatchery summer runs were planted in the lower mainstem Clackamas, I believe they are referring to the lower mainstem of the upper Basin, which is above the dams, as opposed to the mainstem below the dams.