I'm not going to write both of these articles word for word, they would be way too long.

This article came from the 6/2/01 Daily Olympian. Titled "Teen wows 'em with DNA study" Centralia youth's research on coho wins state, national honors. It seems Ina Nelson did a DNA research study on the coho salmon in the Chehalis River where both hatchery and wild fish have commingled for decades. Her findings -- that the two fish carry different DNA - not only surprised her and her high school science teacher, but also researchers at the Northwest Fisheries Science Center, part of the National Marine Fisheries Service.

There is a lot more to this article, it is pretty interesting.

My question is why does it take a high school student to find this out? Shouldn't this be one of the first studies they should do? We have been led to believe that the hatchery fish have ruined the wild fish by breeding with it. This doesn't seem to be true.
Another case in point is in the August - September 2000 STS page 4 under "More Good Wild - Steelhead News!" Biologist Steve Phelps discovered several years ago that the great majority of wild Steelhead in the state of Washington still possessed basically pure genes even though 40 years of planting hundreds of millions of hatchery smolts had occurred. (there is still more to the article). It seems to me that the hatchery fish aren't breeding the wild fish out of exsintense (sp) like we are being led to believe. What's up?

Fishhead5

Superfly, RT, and I floated the upper Nooch before it closed and we saw masses of hatchery fish spawning up there. Now their offspring will technically come back as unclipped fish, but are they considered wild? Yes, but native? Nope.

Good point you brought up, FH5. I've always wondered if the brats spawn with other brats and the nateys spawn with nateys. Gets mind boggling thinking that if there are so many hatchery fish spawning in the rivers, then how do they not spawn with the wild fish? If the brats are not interfering with wild genes, then that's cool. I sincerely hope that they aren't but in the mean time I'm going to do my part by removing those tasty brats from their underwater homes and give them a resting place in my barbeque

I think that in order to establish genetic purity, like that which is contained in truly "wild" steelhead, one must first have genetic coding derived from DNA samples taken from steelhead before any hatchery steelhead were ever introduced to that particular system. Now were talking about close to a hundred years ago on some rivers. First of all, how could biologists of the early 1900's get DNA samples and preserve the data long enough to be matched with modern day "wild" steelhead? Was genetic coding and DNA research even being conducted way back then?

I like to think that there are genetically pure wild steelhead still making their journey up the Sauk every spring. I know there has to be some in there because some of the nates I've got in there have ripped me a new a-hole more times than I can count

"Hatchery fish are screwing up the Wild fish" That's how the state justifies not planting as many Steelhead and Salmon as they used to. Hatcheries cost money, and wild fish don't... Do the math. In the end, it's ALL about money.

Kid Sauk, it would be interesting to be able to compare the DNA from 100 years ago. I think it is ever changing because of the fish that take a wrong turn and bring in different genes. I think Littlezozo hit the nail on the head. It all comes down to money and this is one way for the game dept to get out of doing its job.

Fishhead5

This is a timely topic, the featured speaker for the June 6 Wild Steelhead Coalition meeting will be with Pat Hulett, geneticist with the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. Pat will discuss genetic interactions between wild and hatchery steelhead, and will focus on the ongoing research projects in the Kalama River.

The meeting is at the American Legion Hall in Bothell, from 7:00 to 9:30 and the address is 19213 Bothell Way N.E. The American Legion Hall is located in a large white building just North of downtown Bothell.

I have always been a "native" proponent, but one thing has always bothered me. How do we know the genetic code of a true native? Does anyone have an answer? I keep hearing they are genetically different, but logically it seems as though they don't have the gene code of a true "wild" or "native" salmon or steelhead. Any links to articles or explanations would be helpful.

Rich, what did Pat have to say about the subject?

Thanks
Fishhead5

Well, that's pretty good logic. Not intending to throw stones at anyone, but here's the question:
Given the comparatively recent development of DNA testing, how would genetic samplings of "ancient", or pre-hatchery runs of fish be obtained????
There's been a lot of talk about genetic diffusion and mutations in hatchery-bred fish, and general depletion of the over-all health and condition of some hatchery runs.

While concern over these concepts may be valid, I believe the greatest single factor in fishery depletion is the maintenance and care of water quality and food supply at the brood ponds, and subsequent intervention in the natural selective breeding process.
All the rhetoric currently amounts to is casting blame for bygone practices, and not much can be done about it now.
The damage has already been done to the gene pool.
Why not work with the brood stocks presently available, to re-populate the runs where it can be achieved? So far as the on-shore measures can be taken, there's still a great deal more to be done in the areas of conservation measures, water quality, harvest regulation and restrictions, (both tribal & non), and for both commercial & sport fisheries.
Then there's the question of food fish stocks. If there are no herring, what are our salmon or steelhead going to live on?? If there's less for anandromous fish to feed on, where's the logic in releasing larger numbers of smolt to compete for the reduced food supply? Even if they did survive, you'd see a smaller-sized returning run. Without knowing all the facts, that theory works best for me.
Then, until The federal government takes a stronger stand in the international fishery harvest treaty process, all our on-shore measures are probably not going to show very prolific returning runs for the effort.

The down-side is that the Asian fisheries have depleted the food fishery in the Indian Ocean: it's nearly a desert. Without Pacific Ocean fish supplies, massive numbers of people in the western rim of the Pacific are going to starve. Wars have been fought over less urgent issues.
So, its a very delicate balance, and while we'd probably like to think that it's a simple case of genetic mutancy affecting our runs, it may not be so simple. What may be more the case is that there's an unbalanced food chain, wherein the top of the food chain, (us'ns) is feeding too heavily on a dwindling natural resource.
Points to ponder....

This is how hatchery fish have a negative impact on wild fish.

The Progeny of hatchery fish spawning in the wild have an extremely low survival rate. The same poor survival occurs when a wild fish spawns with a hatchery fish. This has even been documented in the progeny of first generation hatchery brood stock. (offspring of wild fish spawned in a hatchery).
The biggest problems occur when hatchery fish spawn inplaces that have small populations of wild fish. The hatchery fish simply spawn with so many wild fish that is reduces the effectivness of the wild fish in reproduction.

Here on the Washougal river the fish have survived 2 huge forest fires, 3 dams,large mining operations, siltation from bad logging practices, a papermill that dumped their waste into the river, angler overharvest and a host of other things. The one thing that Washougal native stock could not survive was the Skamania hatchery. Even into the 50-early 60's the population of wild Washougal steelhead was holding it's own at around 1500. As soon as the hatchery went in thoes numbers declined and as the hatchery produced more and more the numbers declined fasrer. Now even with WSR regulations runs of wild fish in the 100-300 range are the norm.
Conversly the elimination of hatchery dteelhead from the wind river has led to rapidly increasing numbers of wild steelhead. down from a lows in the 20-40 range the retuen lase summer was 240 and expected to be 400 this year. All it took was the elimination of the hatchery plants.

In the years after the Mountain exloded the South Toutle was the only river in southwest Washington to be meeting it's escapement goals for winter steelhead.
after a few years of being healthy WDFW started planting hatchery summer runs. As soon as they did the wild winter run began to decline and now no streams in southwest Washington are meeting escapement goals.
It seems clear to me that hatchery steelhead do more harm than good and should only be used in areas where they can be removed from the system prior to spawning.

Robert, here is a quote from the article
"Nelson began applying DNA "fingerprinting"techniques on biosamples of both wild and hatchery salmon taken from the Chehalis River. Using 50 samples from hatchery stocks at the Bingham hatchery near Elma, and another 50 from unmarked wild fish provided by the Dept of Fish and Wildlife, Nelson concluded the two populations had remained separate, despite ample opportunity to naturally interbreed over the past several years. Conventional science suggests that the wild and hatchery fish are so closely related that intermixing is common, but Nelson't studies seem to challenge that assumption"

It seems that her DNA test dissproves what you said. The fish don't breed togther. If they did they would have similar DNA wouldn't they?

Fishhead5

here is the thing fishhead...

Because of the extremely low survival rates of the progeny of hatchery fish in the wild there is no change in the genetic structure of the native fish.

I am not trying to debunk the study at all. What I am saying is that the hatchery fish don't influence the gene pool because the progeny of the hatchery fish do not return as unmarked adults. The do not return at all.
The problem with hatchery is when a hatchery fish spawns with a wild fish thereby eliminating the wild fish by making it unable to reproduce.

let me know if I am not being clear enough

They have DNA material from mammoths and dinosaurs, and they've been "gone" a lot longer than the pre-hatchery native steelhead. DNA can be extracted from very minute pieces of tissue, even preserved tissue, so I think there would be a good chance to obtain the necessary DNA samples from SOMEWHERE.

The issue that concerns me isn't gentetic dilution, but the competition between smolts. Competition between smolts and the effects large numbers of hatchery smolts have on the survival rates of native smolts is an issue that hasn't been studied enough.


Interesting topic. I think it's outrageous that the WDFW would need to rely on a study done by a (very intelligent) high schooler. This is the kind of study THEY should be doing around the state. If any intelligent decision is going to be made about managing our fisheries for both native survival AND some harvest opportunity, then studies like this need to be done FIRST. If I was in college admissions, that young lady would be getting a call from MY office

I tend to agree with dan, we have to remember all hatchery fish are actually from native stock but rivers in washington state for instance that have cut back on large hatchery plants as stated earlier have seen major improvements in wild fish returns, just look at the olympic peninsula less has definetly been more!!!PEACE

Good question Dan, why wasn't a study like this done in the first place? Wouldn't you think it would be the first study they did? I also agree with the question what effect do the hatchery smolts have on the wild ones?

Robert, If that was the case that the hatchery fish have breed with the wild fish, the gene DNA would be the same, not 2 different ones, right? There are 2 different gene pools "Wild" ones and "hatchery" ones. Here is a quote "it was really exciting to compare their DNA samples,"she said, "and find that they had remained distinctly seperate populations."

They had remained distinctly seperate populations.

Either they breed togther and have similar DNA or they don't breed and have 2 distinctly different DNA.

So I guess I haven't been clear.

Fishhead 5

Just my .02 cents.
First off if you have hatchery fish in a river where I think the problems come in is the fact that when you have one strain hatchery and one wild you then have two different strains. But if you have these fish cross you would create a 3rd strain. hatchery+wild= 3rd strain of DNA coding. But apparently that is not the case.
Look at it this way, if you have a wild fish in a river that is spawning with a hatchery fish, you have big problems there. Consider it a waste because if the two mingle together and produce nothing then you have a wild fish that has wasted her eggs. For instance if that hatchery fish hadn't been there and a wild fish was then you would have had a successful spawning, wild+wild= more wild fish.
But to point the finger at this and only this is a minute problem. One of the big things that makes me sick about SW WA is the fact that the columbia river has been netted for years and years. They had previously started there netting in Feb. and went through may. Now if you have them taking 10-35 pound springers, how is a 12-30 pound winter fish going to make it through the nets. Also, most all of the rivers we have in SW WA are heavily populated with people and houses in the upper reaches of the rivers. I have personally heard of people that snag and fish the wild fish in the upper EF of the Lewis. For instance Rock creek is a tributary that dumps into the upper EF of the lewis. There is a guy that lives on Rock creek that in the years past he would have a derby behind his house where people would fly in from all over the world to catch these wild monsters. The EF has always been known for it's monster winter fish and a majority of them pass right through his backyard. But the only that doesn't have that is the Grays River which still meets it's excapement goal of wild winter steelhead. Another key pointer about that river is it has a seperate creek (west fork) that dumps into the grays where they raise and release the hatchery steelhead. This hatchery being located on the west fork has eliminated the intermingling of the hatchery fish and the wild fish in the upper reaches of the Grays river. Perhaps, this is why this river still does so well. Maybe it's because it is in the lower reaches of the columbia system, which equals less predators man and wild that they have to come into contact with before they can get to the ocean. '
There is too many problems to point one finger but it all will help.
But I really want my hatchery fish back in the EF of the Lewis.

[ 06-11-2001: Message edited by: stlhdr1 ]

stlhdr got it.. maybe I wasn't very clear about this the reason there are 2 distinct runs is because when hatchery fish spawn in the wild they produce nothing
the progeny do not survive therefore any interactions between hatchery and wild fish result in no returning adults. If no offspring of a wild/hatchery return to spawn then there is no contribution to the gene pool therefore no altered genetics and the two strains remain seperate.

It doesn't seem to matter where the hatchery strain comes from. This same problem has been documented in 1st generation wild broodstock planted back onto the same system.

RA3,

Do you have any links you could post pertaining to the info you stated on broodstock fish? Thanks..........

Here is a link to some info on this subject.
http://www.nwcouncil.org/library/isab/isab2001-3.htm

One point to consider in all this is the history and current state of the fisheries in the Great Lakes. Where there were no Steelhead or Pacific Salmon, and now they have thousands of them. The fish found a way to reproduce and establish a natural population. Hmm ?

Lots of good points so far.

Stlhdr1, I couldn't agree with you more. I miss so many things about the East Fork: The EF's summer run (Smolt plants of only 30K/yr with the ESA listing compared to around 100K before), the huge Winter natives of Feb-April, so many things I miss. I still fish the Feeders, more for the spiritual effect and memories than to go for large #s of fish anymore. The only big ones now seem to be the 3 salt Skamania summer-runs, again only 1/3 as many as before ESA.
It isn't only the "Rock Creek Sportsman Club" that is poaching upper EF. Ya don't wanna go into Yacolt and tell the ex-loggers that you think Reagonomics worked. Lots of those locals turned to dynamiting the upper EF fish for food and $$$.
Our family owns 5 acres along the river between Moulton and the Trestle. We've had it since the early 50s. I basically grew up on it. Many times we'd wake up to see several dead Steelhead in the eddys and along the bank where there was none the night before. I remember fishing above Naked Falls in the early 80's and hearing them blasting. Sure enough, a couple fish would drift down in front of me a half hour later. I watched in frustration as a guy snagged and kept 16 beautiful summer runs out of Moulton Falls one day. Kept throwing them in his truck. Game Enforcement never did show. By the time the sheriff showed up it was a done deal. Outlaw was back at it the next day until me (I was only 14) and some friends I brought along threatened to cause him severe pain. I've got lots of those sad stories.
The gillnets of course had the same effect on most of our SW WA rivers. Washougal and Kalama had their share of big Feb-April fish too, though EF seemed to have more. The Grays is one of my favs too.
On a semi-brighter note, this is soon becoming my full-time obsession.....Ya see, I want to start a native brood stock hatchery on the EF for both the Feb-April natives and the "native" summer runs. Finally put my Fisheries Degree to more use. Much like what ODFW has done on the Wilson and WDFW on the Sol Duc and other rivers. I have convinced my 5 bros & sis to sell part of our land to WDFW to use for the hatchery site but WDFW says they would not be able to even think of it until 2020. They say Salmon Creek (Clark Co) comes first. I say do 'em both. I wanna figure out how to do it with private funds with only WDFWs, American Rivers and the ESA blessing as required. Fish would be caught, raised at the hatchery site and released above and below Sunset Falls.
Anyway, I miss the old EF too. Maybe I'll see ya on it or one of the others sometime.
x

[ 06-11-2001: Message edited by: Extreme ]