Doh

One of the purposes of the HSRG was to recommend improvements in hatchery performance so that wild fish aren’t adversely effected. Their recommendations often resulted in fewer hatchery fish being raised and released.

But hatchery reform will not succeed unless there is harvest reform too. Wild fish and hatchery fish may or may not be genetically compatible. There is lots of debate on that issue. However, there is NO debate on the difference in exploitation rate.

We can harvest around 90% of the hatchery fish, and still have enough for broodstock for the hatchery. However, harvest on wild fish ain’t anywhere close to 90%. It’s probably closer to 10%, depending on the river system.

So if we plan on harvesting the hatchery fish at a rate compatible with productivity of the hatchery (e.g., 90%), the wild fish go extinct. Conversely, if we harvest at the rate of wild fish productivity (e.g., 10%), the hatchery will be overrun with hatchery adults that weren’t caught. In that case, the purpose of the hatchery can be questioned if we can’t catch 90% of the fish they produce.

Historically, the end result is that we catch the hatchery fish, and the wild fish go extinct. This has happened repeatedly in the PNW and elsewhere. Adding more hatchery fish won’t help. Neither will casting the HSRG recommendations out the window.

I agree with FishDoc that a river in its natural state is the best ‘hatchery’ we have. The problem is the productivity of that river may only allow catch-and-release (particularly on steelhead), given the number of anglers who are targeting these fish, the normal low productivity of wild fish, and the precarious state of the river habitat and the ocean conditions.

If at some point in the future the rivers in the PNW resemble those in Alaska, we might be able to have a high exploitation rate on wild fish. Like they do in Alaska.
But until then, wild fish and hatchery fish will continue to be incompatible.

I get it! I think their is little doubt hatcheries have affected most if not all Salmon and Steelhead runs on the West Coast. The question is, where do we go from here? Shut everything down 100% to protect what's left? Close all hatcheries? Stop progress? That ship has sailed. I'm thinking of nothing but opportunity! Call it selfish. Yes I am! Catch and release? That's OK by me. I just want to be on the water with rod and reel. With Steelhead I know some problems exist on certain rivers, but I know some rivers could be open for catch and release. Numbers support it. The Skagit/Sauk catch and release opportunity are prime examples. It's like pulling teeth to get the research done to allow such. I could be wrong but I thought with this HSRG gone, doors could open for an increase in individual river evals. to determine whether such opportunities could open up? Are the tribes the only barrier to this? Sounds like the tribes are all on board with this HSRG gone. Maybe I am totally off base and dazed and confused? HELP!

I think the down fall of HSRG was when they said their plan would be successful in 500 years..

Actually it went south when people refused to do what they said needed to be done to recover wild stocks.
Fish need cold clean water, the general population doesn't think so.
So surprise surprise fishin about done, well played.
Welcome to the days we have made.

It would be VERY interesting to see how many wild salmon returned to our rivers this fall if the open ocean slaughter was canceled for the year. That's the only honest, accurate measure of how many adults our rivers can produce. If we allowed them all to spawn and it didn't result in better smolt production numbers, we'd know our rivers were indeed at capacity with the insanely low escapement goals established today. My jaded sense is that those goals are driven much more by economics than biology.

I'm sure commercial fishing isn't the only thing holding them back, but I've lived in this country long enough to know that people's ability to make short term profit from scarce resources always wins out versus making the sacrifices necessary to stabilize the resource before it's gone. There's a reason people are seldom wrong when they tell you to "follow the money."

Yes and no. There would be a real jump in coho but the Chinook returning this year are 3, 4, and 5 and (ideally) older. Stopping the slaughter one year still leaves th immature Chinook open to fishing next year and the year after and the year after.

I always thought that too. The closest we've come in many many recent years is last summer, when a good deal of the intercept mixed stock fisheries were trimmed due to covid, travel and fishing restrictions, and some degree of lessened commercial impact due to low market demand/price. I'm not saying the slaughter was cancelled, but it was muted to some degree. The preseason run forecast wasn't stellar but it wasn't abysmal either, and I thought my local returns in the south Sound would really shine. They didn't, the run fizzled, and the fishing was on the whole still pretty lousy.

Granted that's a pretty anecdotal little data point, but still I'd hoped for a little more in the strike zone,

fb

Here we go down the same rabbit hole - if we just tweak the harvest and hatchery pieces of the 4 "Hs" salmonid recovery will occur and we can continue to fish.

For the vast majority of the ESA listed salmonid population this continued focus on harvest and hatchery issues serve largely to divert the discussions and needed actions from the real drivers in limiting those populations.

Bottom line we have too many people using our river's productivity to produce salmonids for other uses. This compounded by our collectively unwillingness to pay the true price to prioritize the fish needs.

The fate of Puget Sound steelhead illustrates the failure of the strategy of focusing on those hatchery and harvest issues. The majority of the Puget Sound steelhead populations (70%+) have not had any significant fishing or planting of hatchery fish for 3 to 8 generations of wild steelhead. The result fewer steelhead today than at the time of the ESA listing. Could it be hatchery and harvest are not what is driving the status of those steelhead?


fleaflickr02 asks an interesting question. In the mid-1990s the PS comanager made the decision to reduce harvest rates on a number of region's Chinook stocks. As one would expected there was an increase in the numbers of fish reaching the spawning grounds. However in spite of the continuation of those lower harvest rates the populations have continued to decline at the same or potential fast rates; within a few years there were fewer fish than before the harvest reduction. Take home point eliminate harvest will extend the time we will have fish but not the ultimate end point -extinction!

Maybe the most interesting aspect of this discussion is that it seems that many anglers (PSA and others) and many of he tribal leadership are basically say that ESA recovery efforts will not be successful enough to support fishing and hatchery fish are essential. While I can see where they are coming from not sure that in the ESA arena the feds can hop on that train.

Curt

That was exactly my point above...removing the HSRG doesn't remove the ESA, and the ESA doesn't give twoshits about fishing or fisheries, and won't allow for extirpation of local stocks and increased stocking of hatchery fish.

Without either the God Squad coming in and saying it's ok to cause the extinction of local stocks in order to have a fishery, or the Feds changing the definition of what an ESU is in order to let fish go extinct in the Cowlitz while the LCR fish are still listed, all this does is remove a tool to comply with the ESA.

Fish on...

Todd

So you do or do not support king of the reach program?

Even if we work hard on the FW issues there are big marine problems that are human-solvable like hatchery programs, harvest of forage fish, and bycatch. We simply don't, as a society, want to deal with it.

Agree that past, current and likely continuation of habitat degradation will prevent recovery of wild stock (whatever its definition). And especially to numbers sufficient to meet harvest demands.

This whole complex issue of ESA listings and related recovery efforts is muddled with seemingly mixed understandings (or misunderstandings) of terms and goals.

Is the goal to protect and recover existing pure genetic stocks? Or is it to protect naturally spawning stocks (no matter their relationship to the original genetics of individual river systems)?

My initial understanding was that it was to recover those remnant pure genetic stocks. Then came information that in reality the goal is to allow current stocks (with genetics likely altered by years of out of basin plantings) to evolve over time. That is particularly true with Puget Sound Chinook.

With my current understanding (right or wrong) I am leaning toward accepting a reality that the "wild fish" goal is vague at best and that hatchery production is the only way to generate anywhere near the number of fish (particularly P.S. Chinook) required to satisfy all of the requirements for those fish; human and other.

Pragmatic or caving in??

Let's actually look at successful recovery programs. They (the managers) worked at retaining as much of the original genetic material as possible but in the end the goal was to get animals out there.

European Peregrine Falcons were part of NA recovery. In Whooping Cranes we know that whole lines have been lost, but we are putting out what we have to work with. And, new populations are being returned to areas where they were extirpated. Same with Condors. The whole absolute genetic purity argument is preventing recovery, in my mind. The habitat is changing, even when "intact". What we need is large naturally spawning populations that are able to evolve in the system. But, at the end of the day, wild fish will never meet the consumptive demands of humans, especially if we have to share the fish with pinnipeds and SRKWs. And Grizzlies and wolves.

I worked with some geneticists (fish) who believed that the other recovery programs in other taxa (that actually worked) were wrong because they were not genetically pure. So, they went for purity but apparently not recovery.

I’m always curious if out of basin hatchery fish are as bad at reproducing as some people clam, how quickly will their negative genetics get weeded out if you quit planting them. One or two generations?

And then overall how quickly will natural selection completely take over and you end up with a run that is completely adapted to the watershed?

It seems that places like the Great Lakes and South American have taken NW hatchery fish and been able to colonize naturally reproducing runs.

So even if all the original genetics of a stream has been extirpated I would think if recolonized and left to their own devices you’d end up with what was essentially a native population after a couple generations. Of course that assumes all our man made issues aren’t wiping them out.

Great example!

I believe one of the first rules of change is that if you find yourself in a hole, stop digging. Natural selection will weed out the maladapted fish fast. Not that few Chambers Creek steelhead even made it to smolt. To have to stop not only planting hatchery fish in specific streams but ensuring that any strays will be overwhelmed by wild spawners.

Great example of exotic invasive species proliferation.
That's the same as say look how good the zebra mussels are doing in the Great Lakes.

Completely pragmatic,

fb