There are many problems with the way hatcheries are run, but here are the ones that stick out the most for me.


1. In the wild fish dont spawn with there brothers and sisters. At hatcheries the fish are sorted by size and appearance of healthyness but sometime not even that. The eggs and milt are mixed up in a bucket and sha bang there you have a gazillion inbred fish. by chance not all the fish are inbred the first go around but years of breeding the same stock and your eventually going to end up with a bunch of morons, but sometimes I wonder since they are harder to catch than wild fish.

Solution to 1.

How about rotating fish stocks between hatcheries? We all know the technology is there. Its called a tanker truck. For example, haul all of the carefully selected hens from the lewis river to the cowlitz hatchery and exchange them for carefully selected hens from the cowlitz. just that alone would decrease inbreeding drastically but eventually if you only rotate fish between two hatcheries your still going to get inbred fish so rotate the hatchery exchange to every 3 to 4 years. For example first go around would be cowltz/Lewis second go around would be cowlitz/skykomish, Lewis/Skokomish .


2. Hatcheries have been determined to be successful in the past by numbers of returning fish not quality or size. For this reason the fry are held as long as possible to insure better escapement. These larger hatchery fry are big enough too outcompete the native fry by the time they are released. Though because they are released so late it is my hope that the native fish have already left for the ocean but for native fish of a different species that spawn later it must spell doomsday. Also It appears to me that the later the fish are released the smaller they are as adults when they return, they dont seem to stay in the ocean as long as fish that are released at the standard time for the native out migration. Another problem with late release is that many of the fry turn to smolt before they make it to the ocean, If you have ever caught a 6 inch milting jack like I have you know what I am talking about (especially chinook on the cowlitz). These little inbred jacks can be a problem for naturally spawning adults.

Solution to 2.

Kill the late release policy and release the fish when asap. Also dont release the fish all at once. It just aint natural for a gazillion fish to hatch all at once and be concentrated like that in on section of the river! Release them in spurts, give them time to spread out. As far as the there "isnt enough food in the river" excuse, I call B.S on that line. be more aggressive about putting all carcasses back in the river, stop selling our precious carcasses to jail food and dogfood companies! ALL FISH MUST BE RETURNED TO RIVER, ALL! So what if people dont like the smell. to BAD!

3. History shows us that big rivers produce big fish. Rough rivers with tall falls and obstuctions produce strong fish. So why the hell are so many hatcheries built so close to the salt? and why the hell are these rivers so clear of obstructions. Even the so called rehabilitated rivers! Fish need functionnality not something that looks good on paper and is carefully planned!

Solution to 3.

Move hatcheries as far up river as possible. put back the falls and the obstructions that were removed for boat access.Kind of funny that alot (not all) of these fishermen that talk about habitat restoration have taken a chainsaw to cut out log jams and sweepers so they could continue to navigate through the river to fish.
Ouch that ones going to sting.


That it for now

Solution #1 is one of the probelms with the current hatchery practices. Stocking a river with strains of fish not native to that river (.ie Chambers creek fish.)

Each river has its own unique variables. The native fish in that river have evolved over years to adapt to those variables.

You take fish from another river, that have evolved to adapt to a different set of variables, and then stuff them in a different river and they aren't going to survive/reproduce very well.

Kind of like a thousand years ago, taking an eskimo and putting them in Africa. It just doesn't work.

Eventhough I don't agree with your first sentence for problem 1, I agree with you totally. I just have to say that fish do not have incest taboo like people (well most people). Wild or not, a male will breed to the nearest female in any situations.

Problem 3 is ideal, but it will never happen.
The market for boats will be ruined if the rivers were to be put back to its natural state. Moreover, liability issues from boaters will be sky high.

Bossman, that was an unfair comparison.
The Western WA rivers are not as drastically different as Alaska to Africa.
If you believe much in evolution and the survival of the fittest through natural selections, the small changes b/w Western WA river may bring out stronger generations of fish.

I believe in the near future when DNA collection and analysis are better and cheaper, the hatcheries will be able to use DNA to document and to select breeders according to their genetics.

Micro

I appreciate you seeing the need for hatchery reform and spedning the rime to think about the issue.

let me make some statements and suggestions not for the sake of argument but for the sake of actually coming up with a viable hypothetical "plan"

1. In most cases hatchery stocks are not native to the system they are planted in. For instance lewis river summer runs are not lewis river stock they are Skamania stock which is a combined Klickitat/ Washougal stock. Most summer runs planted in the state are Skamania stock . Just because you spawn fish with one hatchery with thoes in another hatchery doesn't mean that they are different stocks. Also there is the issue of local adaptation which was addressed above.

My solutuion for this would be for hatchery workers to spawn ever fish they have at the hatchery each male with one female and keep a certain percentage of each breeding pair. This would be expensive..

2. I also would like to see some sort of stagered release timing to avoid mass swarms of smolts which are in fact voraious eaters. Also I'd like to see an all out reduction in the number of fish planted and eliminate plants in streams without collection facilities for adults.

3 step up stream fertilization as you mentioned.

4. I'd like to see hatcheries very low in the system!! This will help to eliminate some hatchery hatchery fish from the wild spawning population. This separation is absolutely critical for the longevity of the wild population.

5. hatchery effectivness has always been measured by egg take or the number of fish they raised and planted. the success needs to be measured by 1. the quantity of fish it returned as adults for harvest. 2. how limited it's impacts are on wild fish. and 3 the quality of the fish as a sport fish.

i think the one thing that we as sport anglers should be united on and working toward is the fin marking of every single hatchery fish that gets planted.. The agencies complain about this because they say it costs too much but go look at the catchable trout plants that they did this spring.. all of thoes are fin clipped...

In the wild something like three percent of the young from each redd survive to adulthood (if that) , so I would think the chance of inbreeding occuring in the wild would be very slim especially compared with the way hatchery fish are spawned and incubated.


I believe that originally happened for two reasons. Chambers creek fish and the Greens fish were the easiest fish to transplant and had the best return rate. At the time hatcheries were initiated wild stocks in most rivers had been toasted and were to low in numbers to take for hatchery purposes.

If you did DNA testing on "wild" fish in most rivers today you would find that most "native stocks are polluted already with the DNA from hatchery plants. basically I believe most native stocks today are not nearly as genitically pure as they should be, most native stocks are already long gone. An adipose fin on a fish doesnt always mean its a native fish It just means it wasnt raised in a hatchery. For this reason I think we should do the best with what we have.

I am aware that many hatcheries use fish from the same sources. The exchange program would not be to mix stocks it would be to prevent inbreeding at the hatchery. Spawning pairs instead of spawning groups is a good Idea too but if those two fish were from the same hatchery there is and greater chance they are brother and sister because of the wonderful survival rate of incubated eggs. Thats why I would still recommend the exchange program but now I would like to add your Idea about spawning pairs.




Nature has its checks and balances and I dont believe fish or any other creatures inbreed as a naturally occuring event. Inbreeding causes lower I.Q's, more health problems, deformaties, and so on ETC..........

Good post Micro, lots to think about.. However, on item 1, I have to agree with others that you are wrong on that one. Studys have been done on Idaho fish that show that not only do steelhead return to the same river... they will return to the exact same Redd as they were born on in many cases. This would mean that there is a very good chance that they might meet up with sis for some lovin, and thats after 700 river miles from the ocean. Its one of the things I find totally amazing about these fish.

Micro, do you have any evidence that wild steelehead genetics is influeced by hatchery strains? If so, what is it?

I think the main genetic influence of hatchery fish on wild genetics is to improve sexual selection of wild fish. If you're a wild fish and you choose a hatchery mate, you're not going to be successful. Therefore, wild fish are probably more likely now to choose only other wild fish as mates where both hatchery and wild fish are present. Ie I suspect wild fish spawn later now than before hatcheries were present. That is proabably the simplest strategy for a wild fish to avoid spawning with a hatchery fish.

RA3, Aunty M, I think there is some evidence, that if you delay the outmigration of smolts, then many of them stay in the river and become resident fish. That's the last thing you want to have happen if you're trying to avoid hatchery fish eating wild fish.

Maybe Salmo g or Smalma could comment on the above.

B-run steelie,

are you talking about repeat spawners? Or Bass? I find it kinda of hard to believe that returning fry will spawn in the redd they were born in. Though I know repeat spawners do and I know that bass use the same nest from year to year.

It is a fact of genetics that inbreeding causes weeker strains, not just with humans but with everything that reproduces.


Geoduck,

C'mon, how long have you fished man? If you want I can show you wild fish spawning with native fish on the cowlitz in mill creek and bluecreek.

Aunty M,

I cant argue with those suggestions those are some good ones too. But that avatar is killing me! lol

I'm siding with Geo on this one, micro. Just because you see them spawning together doesn't mean that their offspring return to mix those genes into the pool.

Studies done on rivers like the Kalama, where wild/hatchery spawning has taken place for decades show that the wild DNA shows little measurable dilution from the hatchery stocks.

If you have links to info that says otherwise, please post it or at least tell me where one could find it............I've been trying to read up on this very subject but haven't had a lot of success finding relevant articles.

Good thread.

Damnit I hate homework. I'll go looking but I got to get ready for another fun night at work right now.

Micro- we don't have repeat spawners here. While you might find it hard to believe, Idaho steelhead have such a strong imprint that they will actually return to the exact same redd as they were hatched on. The hatchery fish have such a strong imprint on the hatchery, that they do not stop and breed with wild fish, they go beat their heads " literally" against the gates at the hatchery.

Studys done on upper salmon river Chinook. also show the fish returning to the same spot in the river or creek they were hatched in... within feet.. not yards, not miles. Like I said before, its one of the things that makes these fish so amazing.

heres a start


http://www.cbfwa.org/files/awp00/projects/20045.htm


Abstract
A serious concern in regional salmon and steelhead management programs is that hatchery rearing may select genetically for fish with reduced viability in the wild. It is important to understand the types of genetic and behavioral changes that may be occurring during the domestication process. We propose to investigate domestication-related genetic and behavioral changes using controlled crosses of strains of chinook salmon and steelhead trout with varying degrees of hatchery ancestry. A genetic map of microsatellite markers will be developed for chinook salmon and this map, together with an already-developed map for steelhead, will be used in crosses that test for DNA markers associated with the ability of chinook salmon and steelhead trout to survive in hatchery or wild environments. We will also measure the level of selection occurring in populations of chinook salmon and steelhead trout in hatchery and wild environments by measuring the levels of fluctuating asymmetry of the same populations reared in these environments. Behavior patterns and physiological responses to acute and sudden environmental stressors of wild and hatchery strains of both species which have been raised in a common environment from the egg stage will be characterized. On completion of this study, we will have initiated the characterization of the types of genetic changes associated with domestication in chinook salmon and steelhead trout, and will have identified standard behavioral and physiological tests that can be used to monitor levels of domestication in these species.

Continue with Sections 8-10 (narrative), by reading full proposal in Word or Acrobat PDF format

Reviews and other data
This information was not provided on the original proposal, but was generated during the review processes. CBFWA submitted recommendations to the Independent Scientific Review Panel (ISRP) and Northwest Power Planning Council (NWPPC) in its 2000 Draft Annual Implementation Workplan dated August 20, 1999. The NWPPC used the CBFWA and ISRP recommendations to submit final recommendations to BPA in its 2000 Annual Implementation Workplan dated March 20, 2000.

Focus: Anadromous Fish
Subbasin: Systemwide

CBFWA NWPPC
Recommendation: Tier 3 (do not fund)

SRT review comments
Sounds like pure theoretical research. Unclear what the application is for the recovery of listed species.
Recommendation: 02-02-00 (Eligible for $200,000 as one-time grant for Innovative Research Project)

Recommended funding level:
$199,996

ISRP Comments
Fund, OK for a multi-year review cycle, review in FY2002 for results to date. Comments: Rationale. There is evidence that hatcheries domesticate salmon, which is manifested in changed behavior and physiology. A consequence of domestication expected is that offspring of wild salmon and hatchery products will be less fit in the wild because they will have inherited maladaptive traits from less fit hatchery parents. This project proposes to develop readily observed indices of domestication, which are behavioral assay, cortisol assay, and fluctuating asymmetry. These indices would serve resource managers as a means of evaluating specific stocks. They propose to use QTL techniques to map these domestication traits on the genome of steelhead and chinook. They'll develop a microsatellite map for chinooks similar to the one Thorgaard has for rainbow; entails producing inbred androgens, which Thorgaard has done for rainbows. They'll develop behavior and physiological and meristic (FA) stress indicators that hypothetically relate to domestication selection. They will test for associations between traits and genetic map. It is not explicitly claimed, but the ambition seems to be to be able to assess the 'domestication' of a group of salmon by assessing the frequencies of QTL's known to be associated with domestication traits. The method entails working with pairs of chinook and steelhead stocks, each pair containing domesticated and wild. A product useful to the FWP will be "standard behavioral tests that can be used to monitor levels of domestication" of those species; it is not clear how the information would be used in future hatchery management. (One reviewer suggests that behavioral work be conducted in running water rather than static conditions.) The proposers are eminent in their respective disciplines and provide considerable evidence of peer-reviewed publications of their work. This is highly innovative science. The ISRP strongly endorsed this project and recommends it for funding.

kinda complicated but alos shows what I have been claiming as true. Read carefully


http://www.nwfsc.noaa.gov/publications/techmemos/tm17/Papers/Nielsen.htm


INTRAPOPULATION DIFFERENCES FOUND IN CALIFORNIA
STEELHEAD USING DIRECT SEQUENCE OF mtDNA

Jennifer L. Nielsen,1,2 W. Kelley Thomas,2 Christina Gan,1 and Douglas Tupper2


1USDA U. S. Forest Service
Pacific Southwest Research Station
P. O. Box 245, Berkeley, CA 94701

2Department of Molecular and Cell Biology
401 Barker Hall
University of California
Berkeley, CA 94720

Polymerase chain reaction (PCR) and direct sequencing of mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) were used to depict putative wild and hatchery populations of steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss) in California. Intraspecific mtDNA types were derived from analysis of base pair (bp) differences found in two hypervariable regions of the salmonid mtDNA D-loop (360 bp). Nucleotide variation was found at 16 base pair sites (4.4%) and 13 different steelhead/rainbow haplotypes were identified in California. Distribution of steelhead mtDNA alleles showed a distinct biogeographic cline, with relict landlocked populations and anadromous fish retaining similar frequencies of mtDNA types. Hatchery populations showed no direct biogeographic cline and had higher numbers of mtDNA types than sympatric wild populations. The objective of this study was to test the hypothesis that "wild-type" California steelhead still exist as anadromous and resident stocks.

Steelhead are commonly found in their anadromous form in streams along the Pacific coast from Cook Inlet, Alaska, to Malibu Creek on Santa Monica Bay, California. Steelhead have demonstrated highly variable life histories (Shapolov and Taft 1954). Populations in California express classic characteristics of anadromy where individuals spend up to 4 years in fresh water and then migrate to sea, where they grow rapidly and return to spawn in their natal streams. Other steelhead remain small and mature in freshwater lakes or streams, never adopting the anadromous life style. In California, numerous dams constructed from 1875 to 1930 were reported to trap anadromous steelhead, with subsequent residualization of these populations in local reservoirs. Current genetic, morphological, and morphometric evidence suggests that resident trout and anadromous steelhead are simply different life history forms within the same species (Reisenbichler and Phelps 1985; Currens et al. 1988).

The identification and distribution of intraspecific steelhead stocks throughout California have been a subject of recent controversy. High-seas gillnet fisheries, continuous drought conditions in California, and increased sport pressure have combined to contribute to an exponential decline in wild steelhead spawning runs. Over the last 60 years, rainbow trout of hatchery origin have been extensively outplanted into lakes and streams throughout California, leaving wild stocks in jeopardy due to hybridization and introgression. Concern has been expressed for protection of wild steelhead stocks at the southern extent of their range, where fish may be selectively adapted to low levels of summer flow and higher stream temperatures. These concerns have led to speculation that relict wild stocks may remain in streams and reservoirs south of Monterey Bay. This study looked at mtDNA haplotypes in putative wild stocks from Usal Creek in Mendocino County to Malibu Creek near Los Angeles and explored the genetic relationships between resident and anadromous steelhead remaining in California and contemporary hatchery populations.

The ease of extraction, accelerated evolution, and non-recombination inherent in mtDNA make it a prime target for analysis of intrapopulation relationships in salmonids. Mitochondrial DNA was extracted from non-intrusive fin samples taken from live fish in the field and frozen immediately in liquid nitrogen. DNA was extracted using chelex resin and autoclave thermal acceleration. Approximately 50 ng of DNA was used as a template in the PCR amplification. Amplification was done in 25 ul volumes using homologue-specific primers designed to amplify the hypervariable regions of the salmonid mtDNA D-loop (W. K. Thomas and J. L. Nielsen, unpublished data). Asymmetrical amplification was done according to methods described in Thomas et al. (1990). The PCR product was directly sequenced on acrylimide gels using a radioactive marker (35S) and visualized on autoradiographs.

Tissues from 324 steelhead, from 25 streams and 6 hatcheries, were successfully sequenced. In California, 16 D-loop nucleotide sites (4.4%) were found to vary in steelhead. Wild samples pooled into broad geographic localities showed a geographic gradient from north to south, with a distinct change in the dominant mtDNA allele for each region (north coast = 70% mtDNA Type 1; central coast = 45% Type 3; south coast = 56% Type 5). An aquatic biogeographic species boundary running southwest from Point Conception into the Pacific Ocean (USGLOBEC 1992) parallels the division of steelhead mtDNA types found only in southern California (mtDNA Types 6 and 8). Putative wild steelhead found above reservoirs with no record of hatchery outplanting (St. Inez River near Santa Barbara, and Redwood Creek near Oakland) were found to have mtDNA alleles endemic to their geographic range. Malibu Creek, the southernmost anadromous population, maintained anadromous and resident spawners carrying the dominant southern "wild" haplotype.

Steelhead taken from hatchery populations (N = 60; mean number of mtDNA alleles per population = 4.17) carried significantly more mtDNA alleles than steelhead from sympatric wild populations sampled throughout their distribution (N = 64; mean number of mtDNA alleles = 2.5; two-tail t-test P(T < or = t) = 0.008). This unexpected result may reflect different selection factors at work in wild and hatchery populations tempered by recent drought conditions in California or stock mixing in hatcheries.

Heres one closer to home


http://www.fish.washington.edu/people/hauser/research.html

Evaluation of the Reproductive Success of Wild and Hatchery Steelhead in Natural and Hatchery Environments
Researchers: Todd Seamons (Staff Biologist), to be appointed (graduate student)
Collaborators: Tom Quinn, School of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, University of Washington, Kerry Naish, School of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, University of Washington
Funding: under consideration by the Bonneville Power Administration

Complex stochastic and deterministic processes related to breeding dynamics and survival of progeny result in differential reproductive success of adult salmonids with different phenotypic traits. These processes are essential to the long-term health of populations but are markedly different from patterns of mating and subsequent reproductive success in hatcheries. Hatchery populations are on evolutionary trajectories that may reduce their fitness, and their interactions with wild populations are a serious conservation concern. However, it is unclear to what extent hatchery fish can contribute to the stability or recovery of populations. To conserve wild salmonids and wisely manage hatchery populations, we propose to extend a unique study of reproductive success including wild steelhead, hatchery origin fish spawning naturally, and hatchery fish propagated in the hatchery. We have been sampling adults and smolts of the winter steelhead population in Forks Creek, a Willapa River tributary, since winter 1995-96. We are in a rare position – we are able to extend these data to the returning adult F2 within a year and to the F3 within the next four years. Our experiment will allow us to compare the genetic diversity from one generation to the next in natural and hatchery environments for males and females, estimate the reproductive success of the offspring of wild-hatchery matings in the wild, and determine the extent to which a wild population “resists” or “amalgamates” the genetic material from hatchery fish after cessation of hatchery releases over several generations. Specifically, we will document the phenotypic traits of fish used for breeding in the hatchery or migrating to spawn in the river, and will then use parentage analysis from DNA microsatellites to determine the reproductive success of individual fish, link these results to various fitness traits in spawning individuals, and examine the changes in gene frequency over three complete generations. Preliminary results from the returning adult F1 indicate markedly lower survival of hatchery compared to wild fish, with the differences largely in the freshwater rather than marine phases, and hybridization between wild and hatchery fish (despite significant differences in average spawning timing). We have also found great variation in realized reproductive success of hatchery-spawned adults, probably resulting from variation in fertilization success and low but variable marine survival among families. These results leave open the question of whether the population’s long-term health will be affected by the hatchery influence. Our study is poised to address this question within the next few years.

so if thats the case then there must be inbreeding going on with wild fish to

Micro,

I like your passion, but your sample examples, i.e. Mill Ck and Blue Ck simply do not fit the natural world, as outlet streams to two of the world’s largest hatchery systems.

1. How do you know that wild fish don’t spawn with their brothers and sisters? I’m not aware of any evidence supporting your allegation. Incest, as it were, probably doesn’t benefit either wild or hatchery fish, and if the genetic principles we do understand apply, then such crosses are likely among the first eliminated from the future gene pool, either by non-development or rapid loss to disease and predation. Hatchery fish culture methods have changed significantly over the last decade and a half to reduce the adverse effects of too few and too limited a number of crosses.

I think you’re trying to solve the least of problems, if not a non-problem. Some of what you suggest was tried in the late 70s with no discernable improvements in performance. Old WDF may have some reports on this; I don’t know. Anyway, inbreeding has not been isolated as the primary cause of poorer performance of hatchery fish compared to wild fish. They perform more poorly because they are hatchery fish and don’t experience the fitness-measuring selectivity of the natural environment until after release. I think your proposed solution would increase the number of problems associated with hatchery culture, rather than reduce them.

2. Hatcheries used to be rated by the number of fish, or pounds of fish, released. That has changed. Most hatcheries are now rated by the survival of the fish they produce. Unproductive hatcheries remain in the system for two primary reasons: a. resistance to change; b. political interference. Making changes can adversely affect employment balances in an agency, and resistance to that can be fierce. An unproductive hatchery in an influential senator or representative’s district is almost impossible to close.

Nowadays, smolts of most species are released at the time and size most conducive to their surivival, or the release date is timed to reduce impacts to wild fish. For example, hatchery coho on the Skagit are not release until after nearly all wild chum have emigrated. Your proposed solution is self-contradictory. You cannot release fry/smolts asap and also not release them all at once. Increasingly, smolts are allowed to naturally emigrate on their own schedule after reaching the necessary minimum size (conducive to survival) and considering other stock management restrictions.

Your idea to return adult carcasses to streams is a good one. But even so, there wouldn’t be enough food to support all the smolts in a heathy river system. Food limitation is theorized to be a primary cause of anadromy in the first place. That is, if there were enough food for all the fish in a river to eat, why would they leave and migrate downstream in the first place? As juvenile fish grow, food and space become limiting for species like steelhead, coho, and chinook, for example. As they migrate downstream, seeking food and shelter, they encounter the ultimate house and smorgasboard, the estuary and ocean. From this, species evolved the anadromous characteristic. (Off topic, but first of course, freshwater fish had to evolve from marine fish species - a fun topic for another day.)

3. In some cases yes, in others, not so. Big rivers tend to be more diverse, when their tributaries are included. Consider the Skeena, some of its tribs are noted for large steelhead - like the Kispiox, Babine, and Sustut. Yet, there are runs of small and medium sized steelhead to the Morice. There is much more to explaining the size of these fish than the size of the river of origin.

Most hatcheries are built close to salt water because they get higher smolt to adult survival that way. Hatcheries, by their nature, increase the freshwater survival of salmon and steelhead. Locating them far upriver and releasing the smolts there subjects them to a longer freshwater residence, exposing them to many “fitness for survival” features like finding natural food and avoiding predators, two things we know they are not so fit for.

I appreciate your observation of the hipocracy of anglers who clamor for quality fish habitat but want no part of logjams. Logjams are a good thing for fish.

Again, I like your passion. I hope my post helps inform you that the first and second problems you describe are likely a long way down the list of problems limiting the success of hatchery programs. Fish incest, to the extent that it occurs in wild and hatchery populations, is unlikely to be the primary cause of poor performance, since it likely is very heavily selected against in both the developmental and rearing environments. Size and time of release of hatchery fish is correlated to their survival and impact on other fish. In some cases, the number of hatchery fish released should be further reduced to avoid or reduce their impact to natural stocks we are trying to restore and recover.

Sincerely,

Salmo g.

too much to cut and paste but alot of good info on everything here.

Factor for Decline: Competition with Hatchery Reared Fish

http://www.oregon-plan.org/archives/steelhead_additions/sec4st2a.html

In addition to the potential for genetic risks to wild fish from hatchery fish discussed above, hatchery fish can also compete with wild fish, particularly if they are stocked at a larger size than wild fish at the same time or stocked before they have smolted and thus remain in freshwater until ready to migrate to the ocean. This could be detrimental to wild fish if resources, particularly food and cover, are limited. However, most hatchery salmon and steelhead are stocked as smolts that tend to migrate immediately to the ocean (partly because they are larger than wild juveniles), minimizing the amount of time hatchery and wild fish will be in direct competition for limited freshwater resources. Hatchery salmon and steelhead stocked as unfed fry may compete with wild juveniles over an extended period, but they appear to survive particularly poorly and may be less fit than wild fry. All releases of unfed fry by ODFW have been eliminated or reduced to very low numbers. In addition to hatchery-reared fish, juveniles produced by hatchery adults spawning in wild fish habitats can create competition for wild populations, as in the case of wild winter steelhead facing potential competition from summer steelhead juveniles produced by hatchery adults spawning naturally in the Willamette Basin where summer steelhead were not indigenous. Also, hatchery salmon and hatchery trout can impact wild steelhead through competition and other ecological interactions in some situations, so this concern is also addressed in this supplement to the OCSRI plan.

I am not done with my homework yet but most everything I have stated is backed up here in my last several post.

I have got to get to work now. I'll be back around 12:ooam

really quick cause I got to get to work I know it is very unlikely as stated above because not enough fish from any wild redd make it. the odds are very low that wild fish inbreed.

Micro -
Some interesting ideas - as others have stated I like that folks are thinking - a couple of comments/clarifications.

Proposal #1 - Actually the information that is becoming available would seem that wild brother and sisters may breed more frequently than you think. Recent DNA work that allows tracking indivual families have found survival of indivual redss varied considerably with just a small handful of pairs of fishing producing lots of fry and others none at all. Thus the majority of the ofspring maybe from just a few parents.

Also need to remember most wild population started with just a small handful of founding adults. A recent real world example would be the even year pinks found in the Snohomish system. As you probably know few even year pinks are found in Washington. In 1980 a total of 150 spawners were seen in the Snohomish that population has grown until as many as 80,000 are expected back this year.

I think it would be just as likley that siblings may breed together in a hatchery as the wild.

Another factor to consider with anadromous fish is that after the fish are released they experience alot of natural selction - depending on the species it is typcially for less than 1% to as many of 20% of the smolts to survive to adult hood. Clearly lots of chances for the village idiot to culled from the breeding population.

Proposal #2 - By their vary nature hatcheries tend to be selctive. Sometimes it is good, sometines not so good. The real point is that managers need to pay attention to these details and make sure that clear plan is laid out with evaluation of whether goals are being met.

An example of steelhead program where the size of the fish were rigorously selected is the Skamania Summer steelhead. Historically the fish were most 1- salt fish. However to develop larger fish the largest returning adults (especially males) were selected. Over several decades the result was that most of the returning adult Skamania fish were 2 and 3 salts. It is interesting that when hatcheries practices were changed to remove size selction (either larger or smaller) from the breeding program the returning adults began getting smaller and younger. 15 to 20# hatchery summer steelhead are not nearly as common as two decades ago.

The key in releasing fry from a hatchery is to do so that they leave the river as quickly as possible. That is plant them as true smolts - that means that depending on the species some may need to be reared for a year or more (steelhead, coho, and some chinook).

Robert -
In mother nature large swarms of smolts leaving the river is the way it should be. With large abundances (sockeye, pinks, chums) 100,000s or millions of fry maybe leaving the systems in a very short time period.

Regarding the genetic interaction between hatchery and wild fish. The information currently available is somewhat of a mixed bag. In many cases despite some real concerns from many of us the remains discrete wild stocks. From a paper you cited:
"Malibu Creek, the southernmost anadromous population, maintained anadromous and resident spawners carrying the dominant southern "wild" haplotype." Not what you are predicting.

Retarding increasing the number of carcasses on the systems. clearly having lots of carcasses returned a lot of nutrients to the systems. Those nutrients were incorporated into the systems by large mammals and other predators/scavagers dragging the carcasses up into the reparian areas or directly recycling the nutrients themselves. The other process was the trapping of the carcasses in the river channels until they rotted releasing the nutrients. The carcases typcially were trapped in log jams, side channels, etc. Unfortanely we as a society have so altered many of our systems that where would the predators/scavagers live or where is the channel complexity to trap the carcasses. It is further compounded by changes in the hydrograph - that is flooding is much more common today causing the carcasses to wsshed to the marine waters - doesn't do much for the freshwater productivity though may have the situation for crabs etc.

In short without habitat improvements adding carcasses is not likley to produce the expected benefits. It will be interesting to see if there are any benefits (large runs) on those systems where the number of carcasses have dramatically increased. For example in recent years (the last 2) the biomass of wild spawning salmon in the Snohomish has been between 3 and 7 million pounds/year - up from 3/4 to 2 million pounds/year for the last several decades. At the current escapement levels adding a few 10,000s carcases will not make much difference.

Tight lines
S malma

You hit some very important points for meaningful hatchery reform.

In the past couple years a number of blue ribbon panel reports on hatchery reform have been published, and these may be of interest to readers of this thread. Here's a few to start with:

The Hatchery Reform Scientific Group (for Puget Sound and the Washington coast): http://www.hatcheryreform.org

Trout Unlimited's 2004 report on "Landscape Hatcheries": linked from the TU homepage: http://www.tu.org

The Columbia Basin's Artificial Production Review and Evaluation:
http://www.nwppc.org/fw/apre/Default.htm
http://www.nwppc.org/library/2003/2003-17.htm

the 2001 California DFG and NMFS hatchery review
http://swr.nmfs.noaa.gov/jhr.htm