I know that Oregon does some of this is anyone aware of Washington's stance on broodstocking? I would love to know more about the advantages and disadvantages of this practice.

I think first we need a common definition of what broodstocking is. I take it to generally mean the live capture of wild salmon or steelhead and then artificially incubate the eggs and artificially rear the offspring. Then what? Release offspring smolts marked or unmarked? I guess that depends on the purpose of undertaking the broodstocking effort.

Broodstocking can be undertaken to prevent the likely or impending extirpation of a population like was done for HC summer chum salmon. Although habitat degradation limits total productivity, overfishing was the proximate cause of population decline. So the co-managers agreed to terminate the overfishing, and small temporary hatcheries were set up to kick start recovery of populations and to extend them to streams where they had been extirpated. As a recovery effort, this broodstocking program appears to have been successful. As far as I know, summer chum are sustainably returning after the hatchery kick start was terminated, both to the original hatchery streams and some where summer chum had been extirpated.

Broodstocking can be undertaken to add harvestable numbers of fish to a population that is otherwise too unproductive to produce a harvestable surplus on its own. This kind of program is only sustainable when there is a continuous supply of surplus adult fish over and above natural escapement requirements. The broodstock program smolts would have to be marked in order for this kind of program to work, and the fish would have to be able to pass through mark-selective fisheries. Otherwise the mark goes for naught.

The former Snider Creek broodstock program on the Sol Duc may have been such a program. I say "may" because, despite going on for 25 years, no one bothered to set up and systematically collect any data to evaluate the success of the program. Marked fish returned, and so some thought that meant that the program was a success. That is a "feel good" success, since the productivity relative to natural production was never measured, so we'll never know.

Personally I favor broodstock programs that can prevent extirpation of populations when the limiting factor or factors can be successfully addressed. I'm not keen on the idea of using broodstock programs to develop harvestable fish that the wild population is unable to produce. If harvest is what is wanted, then I think it makes better biological and ecological sense to have a segregated hatchery program that is entirely separated from wild stocks. The Chambers Creek hatchery winter steelhead program was one such, except that the CC fish became unable to sustain themselves. (Whether that was avoidable or not is the subject for another discussion.) The key component of segregated programs is having the means to limit the number of hatchery fish spawning naturally in spawning grounds intended for use by wild stock spawners.

Nicely put Salmo.

It sounds like the LLTK group is doing a similar thing, perhaps even in the same or adjacent watersheds in HC, for local steelhead populations. . .using broodstocking as a tool to provide life support to those steelhead populations on the brink. Any knowledge of that? Sorry to the OP to sidebar the conversation, but it's interesting.

fb

Thanks guys, a couple of good, thought provoking posts.

Here's a link to the LLTK program:

https://lltk.org/project/hood-canal-steelhead-project/

Well said, Salmo. I like broodstocking if used as a tool for wild recovery or if it supplements to allow for angling opportunity without having a negative impact on wild fish. Basically, programs ran arbitrarily can create a problem. A program ran with sound science is preferred, and a program's success can vary widely from basin to basin.

-FishDam

Agreed.

The missing element from most every broodstocking program that is not a rescue program is a clear statement of its goals, and then measurement of if it's accomplishing them without negatively impacting wild fish.

"Our program works great!"

Yeah?

"Yeah, look at all the hatchery fish we get to harvest!"

How is that on wild fish?

"Great! We only harvest the clipped ones!"

Yeah, but how many wild fish don't spawn in the wild because of your program?

"None! We live spawn them!"

Yeah, but you may as well have killed them, they didn't spawn and make more wild fish.

"But look at all the hatchery fish we harvested! It works great!"

How many wild fish would those fish have made if left in the river instead of put in the program?

"But look at the hatchery fish we harvested, it worked great! Plus I had bookings for trips thru March! It works great!"

**

Harvesting hatchery fish and supporting the guide businesses is not the same as "good for the fish runs"...they are different metrics. Both good metrics, both valuable metrics, but different metrics.

Every fish taken out of the river and put into the program equals reduced wild fish.

Period.

The only way to offset that is if the returning hatchery fish spawn in the river, and make enough wild-ish fish to replace those missing ones without reducing the fitness of the wild run...the numbers have to pencil out to "the same or more" wild numbers, or the program is a net negative for the wild run.

It may be positive for several recreational/societal/financial reasons, but scientifically, it's a downer.

The data needed to make that determination is severely lacking in every program I have ever looked at, anecdotal at best, and missing completely most the time.

Fish on...

Todd

Yes, Tacoma Power has partnered with LLTK to try to restore steelhead in the NF Skokomish as part of its Cushman hydro settlement. I haven't been involved since just after it started, so I don't know how far along it has advanced.

On the other hand, you take programs like the Wenatchee and Methow...the fish were severely depressed, listed on the ESA, and they closed them to steelhead fishing altogether.

They implemented a rescue program, used locally adapted fish in the hatchery, and raised and released them...and several generations later had enough wild fish returning to not only re-open the rivers, but to require harvesting excess hatchery fish so that the now-adapted runs could spawn in the river without them.

Clear goal...more wild fish spawning. Goal accomplished...and then we got to fish.

Like all wild runs, those stocks have been up and down with numbers, and we don't fish every year, but we do get to fish again on stocks that were down to handfuls of fish.

Fish on...

Todd

Clip guides.

Thanks for the input guys, yes, clearly there is always a cost. In the case of broodstocking, the cost lands on the wild fish. The problem with our fisheries is complex and does lot lend itself to simple answers.

Oh BS.
Human over population is the problem.
Pretty damn simple.

Give the man a cigar but wait are not we supposed to get a couple of million more folks in the next 50 years? That should make for a great day on the river.

Agreed...but they frown upon removing 40% of the population.

Short of that, we'll have to come up with a different plan.

Fish on...

Todd

Did someone say Swanny???

Dood.



Fish on...

Todd

This is pretty funny!

-FishDam

I was framed.

Bingo. I always bring this up when discussing Policy decision making. Salmon have both intrinsic value as well as an actual quantifiable socioeconomic value. Too often stakeholders swing too far one way or the other, and forget the importance of middle ground policy creation and implimentaion.

Frankly, I just don't get why anybody in the hatchery world wants to invest in harvest programs for winter steel.

In terms of food value, they rank right up there with brown CR tules or dark coastal chinook... basically a fat-free carcass full of eggs or sperm.

You want hatchery steelhead to harvest? Plant summer runs... a much higher snd better use of limited dollars for hatchery programs