Dr. Ernest Brannon has done a series on hatchery issues. I'm sure that you will find his series interesting. There are no easy answers and there will always be folks on both sides of the fence. The 6th in his series is entitled:

" Hatchery Fish Performance - Success in Natural Streams "


GO TO: http://www.nwfishermen.org

The full series is linked at the bottom of the website.

Thanks!

A fault in his argument!!

His argument is that the goal is to return spawners to spawning grounds. I would disagree with that goal. Our goal should be to have our spawners producing offspring at a rate that increases the population to the maximum possible..
Spawners mean nothing if what they produce is nothing!.. In all the cases he mentiones in his articles every one of them that I am aware of are on systems that are still heavily planted with hatchery fish.. No distinction was made as to the origin of the spawners that return! The could just as easily simply be stray hatchery fish, particularly with the chinooks in the columbia, most of which are not clipped...

The real and ONLY way to evaluate the effectivness of a hatchery fish in the wild is to stop planting hatchery fish!!! Only then will you know if you have achieved restoration...

He complains about politics,well his position also is a political one NOT BASED ON SCIENCE only his interpretation of the data.. His interpretation being Hatchery fish spawning makes them wild... Don't be fooled that's ALL ge said...

I read all five of his articles too. I was impressed that he was able to cite 17 examples where hatchery fish were used to establish or rebuild self-sustaining runs.

But I would have to agree with RA3.... the ultimate test of whether or not those runs are "self-sustaining" is to stop planting them with hatchery fish.

I would feel much better about this research if I knew more about the funding. Who is the Salmonid Foundation and what are their goals? I note that some of the publication's listed at the site are VERY political in nature. This makes me a bit skeptical.

The Salmon and Steelhead



Hatchery Fish Controversy, Part VI



Ernest L. Brannon, University of Idaho--February 26, 2005



Hatchery Fish Performance Success
in Natural Streams



It is too bad that our salmon and steelhead resources have become so politicized. Once that occurs, and politicians promote or degrade different recovery strategies, the resources are the losers. The May 12/04 article in the Seattle Post-Intelligencer “Salmon recovery efforts must be based on science,” by two King County officials is an example. Apparently they wanted to politicize the National Marine Fisheries Service decision to reconsider hatchery fish in listing determinations under the ESA. The County officials' allegation was that hatchery fish were genetically inferior, more susceptible to disease, and less adaptable than wild fish. Unfortunately, none of their allegations were based on science. They got it wrong, but such allegations are common because political pundits don’t really consider the science. I admit that if good records were kept on hatchery introductions in the Pacific Northwest they would undoubtedly show mixed results, but that is not the fault of the fish. The problem has been fisheries management and how hatchery fish have been used in various applications.



So lets turn to hatchery fish performance in the natural environment and look for genetic inferiority, disease susceptibility and poor adaptation. Most noteworthy among recent hatchery programs is (1) the pink salmon in Prince William Sound (PWS), Alaska. Mean annual adult pink salmon returns to PWS from the 1920s to the 1970s were around 5.2 million fish. Since hatchery production started, the mean adult return has been in excess of 26 million fish annually, and the largest run in the history of PWS occurred in 2003 with 57 million fish. Analysis of otolith marks of hatchery fish in streams relatively close (20 km) to the hatcheries have shown the majority of spawners have been hatchery strays, and there is no evidence of reduced productivity of the wild populations in those streams. Hatchery fish originated from the Sound and are genetically compatible with wild fish.



Other hatchery programs show similar integration. (2) Sooes River just south of Cape Flattery , had fewer than 100 fall Chinook reaching the spawning grounds in some years. Since the Makah National Fish Hatchery program started in 1982, the population has built up to well over 8,000 fish returning to the system. (3) White River with spring chinook salmon dropped to less that 10 adults in the mid-1980s. The hatchery program has been successful in returning over 400 adults annually to the hatchery through the 1990s, and over 2,000 untagged adults returned to their historical spawning grounds in the fall of 2001. (4) The Sacramento River winter-run chinook project is also successful. The program to recover these unique salmon has stabilized and perhaps has even increased the effective population size of the winter-run chinook population previously listed at risk of extinction. (5) And finally, the Oregon coastal hatchery coho have shown no negative impacts on wild coho returns, suggesting no genetic or disease interactions.



Supplementation in the Columbia River Basin has also been noteworthy. (6) Genetic analysis of rainbow trout in the Yakima River and (7) Carson chinook salmon introduced to the Methow River in the mid-Columbia have shown these fish are integrated with the wild populations. (8) Chinook salmon out-planted in Lookingglass Creek in the Salmon River system from the Rapid River hatchery, tributary to the Little Salmon River, have shown spawner-to-spawner return rates similar to wild fish. Successful hatchery fish introductions also include (9) spring chinook in the Methow basin and (10) fall chinook in the Yakima River, (11) chinook in Lake Coeur d’ Alene , and (12) coho in the Yakima River , and (13) coho in the Umatilla. Yakima coho demonstrate increasing survival among second- and third-generation progeny compared to first-generation hatchery fish, which verifies the expectation as hatchery fish adapt to their receiving stream.



There are other successes that add to the record. (14) The self-sustaining chinook salmon populations originating from Sacramento River hatchery transplants to New Zealand streams, and (15) chinook and (16) coho transfers to the Great Lakes provide strong evidence for the potential of hatchery fish to do well and adapt to new circumstances.

And then there is (17) the Hidden Falls hatchery on Baronoff Island , Alaska , propagating coho over the last 15 years. Out-of-basin coho reared under natural conditions in Deer Lake experienced smolt-to-adult survival rates of 5 to 24%. The same coho stock propagated under standard techniques at the Hidden Falls hatchery, have shown smolt-to-adult survival rates from 6 to 29%, every bit as good as the fish raised in the wild.



The above 17 examples of hatchery fish successes are not experimental results, but long-term circumstantial evidence of populations that have become established using hatchery fish. The point is there is positive evidence that artificial propagation can contribute to naturally spawning, self-sustaining salmonid populations over the long-term, even from conventional hatchery programs and transplanted stocks. There is no corroboration of genetic inferiority, greater susceptibility to disease, or less adaptability associated with hatchery fish.



The key to success is making sure that the biological needs of the fish are provided for, and when hatcheries can be reformed to better provide for those needs, even better performance can be expected. The problem is that the hatchery controversy has been exaggerated out of all proportions. It is not just that the arm-chair biologists have misinterpreted the data on hatchery fish, but that there has been the even more insidious strategy to purposefully misrepresent the information in an attempt to benefit some political agenda. There is no question that hatchery fish can fail if they are not adequately provided for in hatchery environments, or are applied in ways inconsistent with their genetic predisposition. Those problems require management reform and can easily be corrected. The problem of using hatchery fish, or spotted owls, or wolves for hidden political agendas, however, will never be resolved, and the public should beware when they see opinions masquerading as science.



Dr. Ernest L. Brannon is a professor at the Center for Salmonid and Freshwater Species at Risk, University of Idaho, Moscow. He is also Chairmen of the Salmon Committee for the Salmonid Foundation.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You do not have agree with it, but if you are honest, you can at least acknowledge the fact it does contain quite a bit of accurate information.

I agree with Dave Vedder.

The "Salmonid Foundation" may not be what it presents itself to be. The articles "Lying leftist Lunatics Loot Oregon Taxpayers" and "Democrats Poised to Seize Water (and Power) in Washington" indicate a strong bias.

Another clue is that the statement of purpose by the editor contains the term "wise use".
"Wise use" is a code word for what many would call reckless exploitation of resources.

Also in the statement of purpose: "The Foundation encourages projects which would improve opportunities or salmonid recreational fishing to its highest potential, consistent with other uses of the fishery resources and their environment."

The qualifying phrase "consistent with other uses of the fishery resources and their environment." looks like a key to where these folks are coming from.
SS

Hatcheries are a fact of life in fisheries management. I won't deny that there are problems, but they can be worked through. Using locally adapted stock can help. Re-building "wild" stocks by using hatcheries as a supplement to natural production in another option.

Keep in mind that private individuals, the states, the federal government, and the tribes have been involved in hatchery production for more than 100 years across the country. At the same time, all of us have contributed to the decline in habitat conditions. In many cases, the local hatchery is the only reason we still have fish to pursue.

In the "good old days" the state and the feds blended stocks and moved fish around. If one looks through WDFW hatchery records or other agency hatchery records, it quickly becomes apparent that there are very few locations, if any, that you can make an argument for a truly unique, wild run. Folks have been blending stocks for years. It is only in the past few years that more consideration has been given to building on locally adapted fish.

Fish, given the chance, are remarkably resilient and adaptable. Not all fish return to the hatchery they were released from. Some show up at hatcheries in different river basins.

We need to build on the work done by the HSRG and tune our hatchery programs so that "wild" runs can be sustained/built up and also to allow for production to allow recreational and commercial fishing to continue.

Try to imagine what our fisheries would look like if there was no hatchery production and I mean no hatchery production including put and take trout for the lakes. Then think about the economic impact to the state.....it wouldn't be pretty.

Bushbear, it's my conention that hatcheries regardless of the broodstock CANNOT be used to supplement wild spawning. In ever case I have read about hatchery fish, even wild broodstock, showed such low abilities to reproduce in the wild that their offspring could not be detected in subsequent spawning runs.

to determine the effectivness of hatchery spawners is to have a genetic database from each individual that spawns then compare thoes with every fish that comes back from that years spawn, this would allow you to identify the parents of every fish that comes back and thus you'd know how many adults returned from a pair of hatchery spawners..

The problem? not all hatchery fish return to the hatchery to spawn. therfore you can never be certain that the fish spawning in the wild were born in the wild, this is especially true since we have such low clip rates in the upper Columbia.. My point here is that we don't know where these wild spawners come in most cases. What we do know is that in every case where it is well studied and documented hatchery spawners produce extremely poorly, so much so that they do not contribute to the wild run size, this includes wild broodstocks...

I thought they had a hatchery program specifically to recover hoods canal chum runs. It was my understanding that they had grown the run to a healthy size and stopped hatchery production. Assuming that these fish persists over multiple generations with good returns that would be a good example of the good a hatchery can do.

i think Dave Veddr hit it on the head...... way biased and using misleading terms to confuse and mislead the reader. definately politically funded from the water nazis of that area.

their attitude is that if they want to grow rice over there, then they should be able to take as much water out of the river as needed to grow rice. the area is perfectly suited for dry farming over there but they want to screw everyone with water oppression. yes my position is biased as my familly runs a dry farming wheat/brewing barly farm over there.

sorry about the tangent but i am soo sick of politically funded junk science.... it reeks of NOAA

Ernie Brannon was one of my favorite and best fisheries profs at UW. I respect him. Please understand that university profs are expected to do consulting work, and their papers and reports usually tilt toward the funding source. I don't think that comes as any surprise to most of you. I think what Dr. Brannon is doing is selectively pointing out examples of apparent - circumstantial evidence mostly, not scientific study - hatchery success in enhancing, restoring, or developing naturally reproducing populations.

He, or another fisheries expert, could also select examples where the results were negative, or even a complete disaster. In fact, I think he did once in Fisheries 401. So, you see, it's a mixed bag; therefore, it's wise to be critical and examine as much of the best information as possible.

Sincerely,

Salmo g.

Salmo G.,

It's discouraging that respectable fisheries scientists tilt their papers and reports toward the funding source.

The "water nazis", as Lupo colorfully described them, have a lot more money to buy favorable scientific testimony than we do.
SS

SS,

Although there are some biostitutes who can be bought, it's not usually that way. The "tilt" I mention might also be called selective science, and since there's at least two sides to most any story, favorable results are reported.

It might have gone like this: "Dr. Brannon, are there any examples of hatcheries successfully recovering wild or naturally spawning populations?" His job then, is to search the scientific literature and question his associates seeking an answer to the question. He wasn't asked to report on hatchery failures, and depending on his search, he might not find any of those examples. It's pretty clear that in his search, he found several examples that provide at least circumstantial evidence consistent with a "yes" answer to the question he was consulted on.

Academia may be an ivory tower, but a whole lota' the money that comes there has strings of one sort or another attached.

Further, most people read information through some kind of biased lens. I can write a report and get feedback that I'm being brutal to power companies, that I'm extremely objective and reasonable, and that I'm in the power company's hip pocket - all from the same work product. People are funny, and it keeps life interesting.

Sincerely,

Salmo g.

There are always two sides to an issue. Where the truth lies is why we need to look at the big picture. Somewhere on either side of the middle you will find an answer to your questions. How we balance the final decisions will be the legacy we leave for future generations.

I don't think we'll ever get our rivers back to the conditions of the 1850s, but we can try to improve them as much as possible. We can set seasons/bag limits to protect those species that need protection while at the same time, we can work towards enhancing recovery efforts.

I'd hate to think that the battle might be lost on our watch because we refused to consider enhancement options that are available to us.

Bushbear..

In our attempts to be reasonable with salmon recovery efforts we have destroyed many runs.. THe only thing that i'd be willing to accept is thurough restoration and protection of salmon habitat and restoration based on already exsisting wild stocks.
I do not believe it is possible to restore wild salmon and steelhead runs using ANY hatchery technology. There is no scientific precidence for restoring wild runs using hatchery stocks OR EVEN captive rearing or wild brood stocks.. The only thing that is scientifically supportable is wild fish spawning by themselves ig good quality habitat. That is the only thing that has every worked and that is the only thing that shows any signs of working...
I desperatly wish it was as simple as planting hatchery fish. It's not!
If we are not willing to save the habitat and save the wild fish we have left there is no point in spending any money on doing anything to help salmon we might as well crank up the chainsaws . clearcut the whole state, build dams and generate as much electricity as we can through the lakes we create.. Because if we WILL not save the habitat and the wild fish we still have we might as well make our state good for something else.

The Dungeness Chinook recovery program is looking promising based on a captive brood program where eggs were pumped from redds, incubated and hatched in the hatchery, and the fish then raised to maturity at the hatchery and spawned. The offspring were then raised to various sizes and released. The returns this year - using "hatchery raised fish" were estimated at just over 900 fish. It is possible, and advisable, to use locally adapted stock in recovery efforts. Other states, Colorado for one, have established hatcheries dedicated to recovery projects of listed species. .... and lets not forget what captive breeding programs did for other species such as the condor and peregrine falcon. Hatcheries are a tool of wildlife management. Science (good science not political science) needs to drive the process.

The habitat is still an issue and work supported by the county, state, and Jamestown S'Klallam tribe is planned to help re-establish as much "natural" habitat as possible.

Time will tell, but without the captive brood program we still would be looking at limited returns if we were totally dependent on natural production.

bushbear,

I'd be happy if the Dungeness program works out but again we will only know the extent of it's effectivness when they quit planting them and the run survives on it's own. The studies I have read suggest that there are serious problems with the captive rearing process with migratory fish because they rely on all the same technologies as regular hatchery fish..

I'm not too impressed. His main point seemed to be: if you plant fish in a river that has little or no fish, there will be more fish in 2-5 years. Really? We have known that for a long time.

And take the Steelhead out of the title of this "study" please. His 17 examples of successfull hatchery introductions did not include one of o. mykiss .

In terms of steelhead, if I remember correctly from prior discussions on this board, smolts produced naturally (?) in the rivers from hatchery/hatchery crosses and hatchery/wild crosses are obviously genetically inferior because the adult return from the crosses is virtually zero. They just don't make it out and back........

Ike

Ike,

After sitting on the sidelines, reading some of the rather remarkable efforts at convincing yourselves that "wild" is always right, I've finally been forced to become a member and join in the fray.

Don't think for a minute that some of the anti-hatchery "science" that you may have read is actually unbiased. Our fisheries universities have been pumping out "scientists" with a non-hatchery bias for many years now, and only recently is the pendulum beginning to swing back.

As a trained geneticist, I'm often very confused over the attitudes expressed by folks advocating the total non-use of hatchery systems to help restore runs of fish. For anyone that has worked in situations that allow you to actually view what is happening on a river system from a genetic integrity standpoint, you quickly find that once populations drop to the point that they can no longer sustain themselves, the factor that contributes most to the "unique genetic identity" of a population is what is termed genetic drift. That is, in simple terms, defined as genetic changes accumulating in populations due to random samping of spawning adults. As population size gets lower, this drift can cause genes to become fixed, or locked in, even though they confer no advantage. Yet, to those not understanding this, the population can look like a genetically unique group of fish.

So how can a hatchery alter genes of a group of fish? The reality is that hatcheries CANNOT CHANGE THE GENETIC MAKEUP OF THE GENES IN A POPULATION OF FISH THAT WERE PRESENT IN THE PARENTS THAT WERE USED TO FOUND IT. Sure, forces within the hatchery system (that remain undefined by most recent experimental results) can provide some domestication selection, but in the less-than-one-generation it would take to produce a smolt from wild-caught or captured adults..? Give me a break. Those fish cannot by definition be GENETICALLY inferior. If they prove to be less fit, it has to be either environmental effects or some sort of genotype by environment interaction, which simply means that we've got to understand hatchery systems more completely. To think in this day and age that we can recover fisheries across the board without supplementation is simply being blind to science.

Fishyologist,

Thank you for "supplementing" this discussion with some good points about the loose use of the term "genetics" and what hatchery culture can and can not do.

Sincerely,

Salmo g.

Fishologist,
Great post!!!
Glad to read some common sense on the issue.

You mean that Lamarck wasn't right after all? How about that...

For those who say that hatchery fish don't return...how do you explain the Cowlitz? There hasn't been a substantial run of natives in the mainstem for over 35 years. Yet it's one of the top producers...

I think there is a LOT to learn about salmon and steelhead restoration, and Ernie Brannon is someone to listen to. His father started, I believe, the Elwha hatchery system waaay back and did his utmost to preserve the genotype in that river--to the point he would go out in an old Indian dugout and gaff returning kings, tether them to a bush until they were ripe and then spawn the fish. If his son has the same commitment and common sense, then his word and his thinking is worth a lot.

I was at a presentation Ernie Sr. gave in the '70s, and he pulled out a freeze-dried carcass of a chinook typical for the Elwha. I can't remember what the said it weighed, but it was well up there-- something like 80 pounds or more.

Keith

I see a 1000 miles of difference between the rehab of a system with a hatchery program and a hatchery program designed to sustain a take fishery commercial or sport. If there is not then there should be no issue with calling all fish equal and managing them that way. Seems to me most of the scientists went into a tail spin when the Bush admin said wild and hatchery fish are the same?

Yea at least the ones on the payroll of the enviormentalist groups.

I think there’s some miscommunication going on here. The professor primarily seems to be saying that when we plant fish they return. There’s no argument that we can always get fish back if we keep the hatchery churning them out... It looks to me like most of his examples do not qualify as reestablishing a healthy run that no longer relies on hatchery supplementation.

The real question is, can hatcheries help reestablish wild runs? I think the answer there is a qualified maybe. I believe prudent hatchery practices have, in limited instances resulted in reestablishing wild runs. I believe some Hood Canal summer chums have been recovered with the help of hatchery programs.

To avoid semantics games, in my mind, it’s a wild fish if its parents spawned naturally. To the extent hatcheries can help with that, I’m all for them. And in urban areas or those so degraded that it is unrealistic to reestablish wild runs, I believe large ongoing hatchery plants are the way to go. There is also a place for hatchery supplementation of healthy wild runs IF we take great care to assure that the hatcheries are not operating in a way that damages the wild runs. That is what hatchery reform is all about.

But I do not believe that it is reasonable to count hatchery raised fish when determining weather the stock are endangered.

Hell yes there is a legitimate place for hatcheries!

The problem is that pro-development interests like the water nazis (love that term!) are still trying, after all these years, to use hatcheries to justify raping the habitat. That's what the Bu****es attempts to equate hatchery and wild fish is about.
SS

I think discussing hatchery programs on PWS pinks, Columbia kings, and WA steelhead at the same time is incorrect. They are apples and oranges.

In terms of hatchery steelhead:

Man, I thought just last month we came the general conclusion that hatcheries served only one purpose - a crutch. That's all they are. Supplementation is truly the key word. They provide more fish to harvest. They do not enhance the spawning productivity of a river. i.e. they make ZERO fish for the future.

Broodstock programs, discussed at length on this board, may have some place on enhancing some wild runs on some rivers.
But if you are relying on the 30th generation of Chambers Creek fish to save the day, you better not hold your breath. Smolts from H x H and H x W crosses DO NOT MAKE IT BACK! So how then are they going to help any run recover?

Fishyologist - thanks for joining the foray. Your comments will always be appreciated on this BB. How much genetic diversity is there between a native (not wild, but native) Skagit River steelhead and a native (not wild, but native) Hoh River steelhead? Compare the genetics in 1905 (prior to white men messing everything up) to 2005 if you could. And how do those genetics of those native fish on those two rivers compare to a Chambers Creek hatchery fish? That would really help me out a lot.

Hope I can sleep tonight.....first trip to OP this year comes tomorrow.....in search of....

Ike

Fishyologist -
Welcome - great handle!
It appears that you bring a valued and interesting prespective to our discussions - looking forward to additional input from you.

It is important in discussing hatchery versus wild to remember that the fish reared in the natural and hathcery envirnoments are exposed to a very different selective pressures. This is especially acute when talking about fish that spend extended periods of time in freshwater.

For a fish like steelhead it typical that 5% or less of the wild eggs to make it to be a smolt while in the hatchery maybe 80% will become smolts the role of selective pressure can be huge. This means that natural selective pressure operates much more severely on the wild stock than hatchery.

These selective pressures don't operate directly on the genetics of the fish but rather on the various phenotypes of the populations. To illustrate take a trait like swimming speed; obviously the following example isn't a real world one but I think it will illustrate on the selection process may work and what the consequences may be. If the wild environment puts a high value on high swimming speed we would see only the 5% that were the fasts surviving to be a smolt while if the hachery didn't vvalue swimming speed (no advantage in a rearing pong) the slow and the quick would survive equally. I think one can see that the resulting offspring would have different swimming speeds. After even a few generations the hatchery fish would be notably slower.

The big thing with hatchery fish spawning in the wild is whether they are as prodcutive as the wild fish. In the above example the hatchery fish would be slower and therefore less successful in the wild. There a plenty of info one the decreased productivity of first generation of hatchery fish when spawning in the wild. Generally the longer the fish are reared in the hatchery (either as a smolt or the number of generations the broodstock has been in a hatchery) the poor they do in the wild.

In the article at the start of this thread the "success" was where hatchery fish were introduced into vacant habitats and after the initial introduction the returning fish were allowed to adapt (natural selection in operation) to the local environment. The mal-adapted traits are quickly selected against and disappear from the population resulting in a successful population. That is a very different situation that an annual hatchery program where less fit hatchery fish are constantly be infused into the population limiting the selection process.

Tight lines
S malma

Smalma,

Not so much that the phenotype changes don't occur, more that all the changes (other than run timing) were not the fault of the fish. Rather a flaw in management practices, man made.

Do you agree?

Locust/Fishyologist,

Do either of you have a relationship of some kind with the Salmonid Foundation?

I sense an agenda.

SS

I believe Locust has a relationship with a different web-site

Can anyone tell us anything about the Salmonid Foundation? I have done a bit of Internet digging, but can't find much. Who are they. Where do they get their money. Do they have an adgenda?

The Salmonid Foundation.

“Who are they?”
- -If asked, would they tell the truth?

“Where do they get their money?”
--How could we ever know that?

“Do they have an agenda?”
--Yeah. They clearly have an agenda.

Tis’ a strange world in which we live, fisherfolk.

Recently a journalist in the White House Press Corp was revealed as being no journalist at all, rather a prostitute for the Bush Administration, planted in the Press Corp to lob soft balls at press conferences. The strangest quirk of all…. he also turned out to be a prostitute in the sexual sense, peddling hard balls on the internet, $200/hr or $1200/weekend.

The Forces of Darkness are spending gadzillions, directly and indirectly, on controlling the public discourse.

There was a time when one might reasonably assume that people on political boards were what they presented themselves to be. That is no longer the case. The Dark Side has paid agents whose day job is participating in online boards, sitting at the keyboard all day pretending…….spinning the party line. The person you think you are having a honest political discussion with may be an intellectual prostitute on the payroll of a right wing organization. Sad.

This board has been political of late.

This thread started with a link to the Salmonid Foundation, which appears, from their rather awkward website and mission statement, to be a front organization for the water nazis. They seem to be pretending to be about Steelhead and salmon, while what they may really be about is getting and/or keeping control of Snake River and Columbia River water.

Suddenly here are new people posting on the board, ( who seem to be supporting the Salmonid Foundation position?) , who may, let’s emphasize “may”, also be only pretending to be about fish.

Considering the way the world works now, it seems only responsible to ask about a possible agenda and where they are coming from. Maybe my intuition is totally off-base and these guys are just honest Steelheaders and salmon fishermen like the rest of us. If so, I’m sorry for questioning their creds and I apologize for my cynicism and insensitivity.

(Hey Guys, how about telling us where you fish and how, your insights into technique and giving us a fishing story?)

Maybe, like many of the rest of us, they are just waiting for the rain. Maybe it’s a coincidence they started posting just now, in a political thread involving the Salmonid Foundation at a time when this board has taken a (possibly {hopefully?} temporary) turn toward the political. Maybe they too are just spending this dry time, this down time, brooding and talking about issues of crucial importance to all of us.

Terribly important issues...vital issues.. issues deserving our full attention year round. But issues that sure as hell won’t be getting any attention from me if it ever rains…… RAIN!….. RAIN! ……COME ON! ……RAIN! ….DAMN IT! …RAIN!

NW Fishermen

Salmonid Foundation

writers@pacifier.com



TU Question
Trout Unlimited asks, "At issue is a central question for all anglers and Trout Unlimited members in particular: is there an essential, fundamental difference between fish raised in hatcheries and those spawned in the wild? Or is it possible, as some are now proposing, to lump together both hatchery and wild fish and make decisions about a species' overall health based on these total population numbers?" Yes, now your getting it TU. You have now entered the new paradigm which is devoted to science without sloppy emotions. --C. Voss


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Harvest Time
Well, there must be a harvest otherwise the fruit will die on the vine, will it not? So, if we don’t harvest the salmon, what then? According to the Green People we should not harvest any “wild” salmon. It’s OK to harvest those alien hatchery fish, because they are for killing and eating.

However, in most cases the killing of “wild” fish is against the law because they are needed to maintain their particular genetic code in their progeny. In other words, the “wild” fish has a different genetic code, which is missing in the hatchery fish, right?

Well, I’m a fisherman that lives on the river and I enjoy chasing salmon and steelhead. I have lived here for 35 years and have caught my share of salmonids. And I’ve put back more fish than I have killed to eat.

Of course, for the last several years the law tells me that I cannot catch and kill “wild” steelhead because they are to be allowed to go upstream and spawn in the river.

But wait a damn second. What about the hatchery fish returning to this river to spawn in the gravel? What say you about her children…her progeny?

Remember, the state and federal agencies tell us that her progeny will be “wild” salmon…….Say what? Are the fishery agencies telling us that when tens of thousands of hatchery steelhead return and spawn in the river gravel that those fish have a genetic change and immediately receive the honor and glory of the “Royal Order of Wild Fish?”

Well my fellow fishermen, this is why the feds and the states spend millions of dollars trying to figure out how to save the wild fish. This is the fatal flaw in the entire system, which keeps them hung up and unable to formulate a program that will separate the wild from the unwild.

Many biologists call this the “Great Conundrum.”

On one side, we have the tendentious belief by the Green Gang that there is a great deal of difference between the wild and hatchery salmon and steelhead. On the other hand, there is a very strong argument: Campton (1995) characterized the same problem in a comprehensive review on what was known about the genetic effects of hatchery fish on wild populations in the early 1990s. Reviewing the relevant hatchery studies, he concluded that what was generally perceived as problems with hatchery fish was actually the result of fisheries mismanagement.

He stated that the absence of baseline data for most wild populations and pedigree data for hatchery populations precludes being able to unequivocally draw conclusions about hatchery effects on the genetics of wild fish.

Ten years later we have little further insight on hatchery effects. Despite the lack of empirical evidence, hatchery fish are still the scapegoats for errors in fisheries management that overlook or disregard the importance of stock structure and biological requirements of anadromous salmonids. Effects of artificial propagation have to be separated from management effects. (American Fisheries Society, “The Controversy About Salmon Hatcheries, " Vol. 29 no 9.)

The problem lies with the unknowing fishermen who believes everything they hear from the Green gang that the salmonid fisheries are being destroyed by alien hatchery stocks. Well, if that is true why are 80% of the salmonids being harvested, hatchery fish?

But even more importantly, why are we allowing the managers of these fishery resources dumb down the populations of wild fish. The answer to protecting wild stocks cannot be found in allowing gillnetters more time to harvest spring chinook salmon at the expense of killing more wild steelhead….But that’s what they are going to do!

By the time the Indian nets work over those wild steelhead one has to ask. Where is the protection for the wild fish?

The answer is: Keep the sport fishermen away from ’em.

So, if you are one of those fishermen who thinks that hatchery fish are hurting the wild stocks….wake up and look at whose wrecking this boat…management.

Ed: C Voss
Salmonid Foundation


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Contact: Chuck Voss writers@pacifier

The Salmonid Foundation was established to advance the development, conservation and wise use of the steelhead, trout and salmon resources through programs of research and education. The Foundation encourages projects which would improve opportunities or salmonid recreational fishing to its highest potential, consistent with other uses of the fishery resources and their environment. In addition, environmental enhancement, protection of wild stocks, artificial propagation and improved management based on better resource knowledge, will serve to increase the abundance of salmonid populations


*EDIT* Just FYI, Chuck Voss started the first Washington chapter of Trout Unlimited.

Salmo,

Not to discount the accuracy of your comments about studies being slanted in favor of who's paying for the research, but, Dr. Brannon was not paid one dollar for his contributions. He volunteered his services.

The foundation is not made up of "Water Nazis". The board is comprised of sport fishers, and sports fishing organization members.

Here's a few more points of interest from another site.


"First off the NW Fishermen Salmonid Foundation was founded by Chuck Voss. Chuck has been a well known sport fisher since I had came to Washington back in 1986. I believe that Chuck was into sales, and sells promotion advertising at that time. He used to do much of the sales promotion for Limaglas fishing Rods when I first met him. Chuck also was responsible for starting up the first chapter of Trout Unlimited in Washington State in the mid 70's. As you can see, he was and still is a dedicated sport fisher who cares both about the fish , the resource, and the future of our sport fishing. Chuck was a major avocate and player in fighting the Bolt decision.

The Director of the foundation is currently Mr. John Kelly. John is a recognized sport fishermen of long standing in Washington State. John also was the President of the Salmonid Foundation. John's back ground and history to serve the sport fisher is undisputable. He is a retired professional Research / Manager. He is a member of The Steelhead Club of Washington. He was appointed a member of the WDFW Steelhead / Cutthroat Policy Advisory Group (SCPAG) and as been reappoint from 1993 to 2005. John also is a Director and Steelhead Chairman for the King County Outdoors Sport Council (KSOSC) which has over 900 members.

And lastly, when I asked Mr. Kelly if the Foundation had paid Dr. Brannon for his research, his response was that he was not paid a single penny by the foundation. He told me that Dr. Brannon peronally feels that the science has been misused and that he wanted people to know just how bad it's been abused. Mr. Kelly will be seeking funding soon to Have Dr Brannon flown out here to attend one of the up coming SCPAG meeting later this year. He will be willing to answer question at this special meeting when it occurs.

If all others could be so open, we just might resolve many of the myths about our hatchery fish and how they can or can't be co-mingled. "

Hey B

Lucust wrote

"Mr. Kelly will be seeking funding soon to Have Dr Brannon flown out here to attend one of the up coming SCPAG meeting later this year."

I'm a member of SCPAG I haven't heard this, we always have a heads up about what is going on, I bet you got this info from Cowman (Bob Reid) the same guy that said SCPAG didn't have rules to go by after his first meeting with SCPAG which he was wrong again, which I proved he was wrong with minutes from and earlier SCPAG Meeting did Cowman tell you that?

Dear smalma et al,

Sorry, no connections to the group you speak of. I agree with locust, however, that it has been way too long that some of the green groups have been directing alot of this effort, and it's time to really examine their agendas as well. Come on, those of us that fish for fun really should be as objective as possible about these types of issues, and not be led blindly by agendas on either side.

That said, I want to adress the issue of inadvertant hatchery selection that smalma brought up. True, hatchery survivals are typically higher than that of a redd, but many times redd survival is another set of random events that has nothing to do with fitness. More importantly, we seem to forget in this argument that a majority of the life of a hatchery fish, however pampered at the beginning of its life, will be spent in the "real ocean" competing for resources. If an animal is capable of surviving, finding prey, avoiding predators, returning to its natal environment, avoiding more predators (especially those mesh net types, don't get me started on that one!) and succesfully reproducing, I'd suggest that selective forces have played an important role far beyond the availability of pelleted food for 25% or less of its life. Don't get me wrong, I believe in wild fish, too. But, given the choice between attempting to allow a river system to try and recover naturally after the population has crashed to a point that genetic drift has compounded the equation, or trying to aid (carefully) in the recover of that population, I'd go with the latter.

I must say, I'm very impressed with the level of scientific comprehension on this site!

BTW to Sucker Snagger,

The reason that I didn't repost to this board this weekend was because I was enjoying the Clifton channel (Cathlamet) and Moclips for a variety of edible delights. You are right, I initially sought this site out in order to try and figure out if anyone else was out catching fish this year while I'm getting skunked. And I was pulled in not from a political sensitivity, but because I happen to believe differently from some of the other posts.

Keep in mind that your forces of darkness might be someone elses points of light, and vice versa.

H2H, what are you talking about?

I will have to read this tonight.

I wil say that I have more time on said rivers than I want to admit right now.I have not caught a wild steely out of the dose or the duc in two years.Trust me I have tried.I did get a hatchery steely in sept on the duc.

Onother trend I see has to do with the skoke.the last two summer I have been catching hatchery kelts full of wild smolt.I haqve pics of on and stomack contents on my old idiot box somewhere.

I was at a freinds house today and found this on another site:

http://gamefishin.com/gfboard/forum_posts.asp?TID=3226&PN=1 (I had to E-Mail my freind to get the link)

"Fishyologist and Locust. They are right-wing paid prostitutes. They are from the Darkside. They have gazillions of dollars to control public disclosure."


Yeah, I guest you can say there from the DARK SIDE of the WORLD!

Fishyologist -
While I agree the ocean tends to be an equalizer when it comes to survival the fact remains for species like steelhead and coho who spend considerable time in freshwater their freshwater survival "skills" are hugely important.

For wild coho and steelhead it is typcially for only 1 to 5 % of the eggs to survive the freshwater enivrnoment. Once a steelhead reaches the parr stage over winter survival (fall to spring) to the smolt stage is typcially in the 30 to 50% range. I think you would agree that is a lot of selective pressure for particular set of survival skills. Because the freshwater and marine waters survival skills are so different - one example for much of the freshwater stage a steelhead to be has to defend feeding areas and finding cover in a relatively small area but once it moves to the ocean to be successful it must be more or less constantly on the move searching for food -the overall survival success of a particualr fish is dependent onits adpatability to both the freshwater and marine water envirnoments.

There a number of studies showing how unproductive first generation hatchery steelhead and coho are in the wild.

The fact that a fish can adapt in a new envirnoment, especially in lack of competition from other anadromous fish does not in itself mean that when they are mixed with local adapted wild populations they will be as "fit" as those wild fish. This would be doublely so if there is a constant infusion of fish adapted to the hatchery envirnoment.

Tight lines
S malma

Amen, S malma, Amen!

FNP
Send me an e-mail to my school account so I can forward you some steelhead picts.

Is Locust proposing that hatchery vs. native salmon and steelhead have no demonstrable genetic differences? That is a really tough one to swallow.

Let's not dilute "native" with "wild" here. Hatchery fish that lucked out and sent genes to progeny, or worse yet, crossed with native fish and produced crossbreeds, are not "native".

I smell a fart. While it may be mine, I think Suckersnagger might be onto something here with the insect.

This group appears to be good at confusing issues! First of all, I thought that we were talking about whether or not to utilize hatcheries to aid in restoration of wild populations once habitat and run size were impacted. Suddenly, the color of my heart is in question because I disagree with "wild in right".

Smalma, I've really got to question your survival numbers! Typical wild coho returns to coastal streams of late have been estimated to be 0.25% That's one quarter of 1%! So your numbers suggest that if we lose 99% as egg to first winter, and another 70% of the remainder to leaving the estuary, then ocean survival must be 100%. Doesn't add up to me. The ocean environment has been much more selective than you suggest, I'd be glad to send you refs.

Please cite your studies that demonstrate the first generation poor performance. I can likely name the authors before you post. The point is, IMO, there is science being published on both sides of this issue that is not unbiased. The wild fish guys are setting out to "prove" that hatcheries are bad, and the hatchery proponents are setting out to show that hatchery fish are not bad. There is little objective science in this arena that begins with a null hypothesis, designs experiments to give neither group an advantage, and objec tively measures the results. If you believe there are, I'd love to read them.

Whoever posted here that Lamark wasn't right after all; this "wild fish vs. hatchery fish" topic seems to be the opportunity for Lamarkian evolutionists to make thir come-back from the 1600's.

As for being attacked for thinking differently, I wish I had godzillions of $$. I'd be leaving these issues to you guys, sitting on a boat in a tropical sea, casting live sardinas to boiling yellowfins and having my crew of Amazonian beauties feed me guava. But I digress...........

Brian, You may disagree with what Locust, etc. are saying...but why the personal attacks? Saying the "I was at a freinds house today and found this on another site" is not right. Would you provide the source, and give some evidence for that comment? (We all know that just because it was on the Internet does not mean it has to be true...or even close to being true.

I kinda like having a diversity of opinions, and from appearences the two "new guys" are talking pleasantly and with apparent knowledge of the subject. Some might disagree with their conclusions, but let's not go bashing folks as individuals because you don't like the science they propose which happens to disagree with your philosophy on hatcheries.

"Why can't we all just get along"

Mike

Smalma,

You, of course, can respond to fishyologist's requests for references to the literature anyway you please.

As far as I'm concerned, you are a tremendous asset to this board, being generous in taking the time from your day job to share your opinion and professional insights on all sorts of Steelhead issues. You come across to me as completely professional, vastly experienced, and all about fish. You and your statements have great credibility with me.

This isn't an academic board and I don't see any need whatsoever for you take on the work load of backing up your posts with references to the academic literature.

That's just my opinion

I'm just real happy that you participate.
SS

What SuckerSnagger said!



Mike

Basic genitics would say its true. Just because you clip a fin off a fish does not change the genitics.

Genetics would dictate any differences between hatchery and wild fish would depend on the parents of said fish. If we're talking about a hatchery stock descended from fish not native to the stream in question (as is the case with many hatchery stocks) then there is a world of differnce genetically speaking. To assert otherwise is just completely ridiculous.

Furthermore, if what S. malma says is true that the first generation hatchery fish spawned from wild native fish perform very poorly relative to their wild cousins, then there appears to be a diffence in terms of fitness and therefore genetics (unless you want to invoke some sort of magically thinking here). This probably has something to do with a lack of selection for most of their freshwater life.

The question that I have is what is the difference between wild and hatchery fish for species like chum and pink salmon where there is no signifcant rearing period in the hatchery. Do they display reduced fitness like stealhead, coho and chinook reared in hatcheries? They spend almost no time in the hatchery after hatching.

My guess would be that this hatchery vs wild genetics thing is a big deal for fish that rear a long time in the hatchery (ie coho, chinook, and steelhead), but not such a big deal for fish that are just hatched and then released into the wild (ie chum, pinks, and sockeye). Anybody know about this?


If this is true, then the proposed policy of equating wild and hatchery fish (thus putting them on the spawning bed together) will probably not hurt wild pinks, chum or sockeye, but may well be devastating for wild chinook, coho, and steelhead.

Just my $0.02

Fishyologist -
I suspect that you may have mis-read my last post regarding survivals - what I said was

"For wild coho and steelhead it is typcially for only 1 to 5 % of the eggs to survive the freshwater enivrnoment."

Thought that was pretty clear that was the total for the entire period in freshwater. I did go to illustrate an example of the kinds of mortality that occurs even after the fish emerges from the egg. Even if it was poorly written the intent was to illustrate that the freshwater envirnoment is a hostile place exterting significant selective pressures on those populations. And that those pressures inlcude different forces than those operating in the hatchery envirnoment.

A coho survival of 0.25% implies that 800 smolts (2/0.0025) would be needed to produce just 2 returning adults. A value of 800 smolts/female for coho is much higher (nearly an order of magnitude) than I have typcially seen with coho production. Unless the freshwater envirnoment of those population is exceptionally productive that kind survival would indicate that those populations must in serious trouble. For comparison the coho survival in Northern Puget Sound is typcially 10 to 50 times higher than the 0.25% you cite as being observed on the coast.

Since you likely are familar with the literature I see no reason to provide cites. Howeve I will mention that some of the work on the poor preformance of hatchery steelhead spawning in the wild has come from the research being done on the Kalama River by WDFW staff. If you are suggesting that WDFW (operator of one of the largest hachery systems in the world) is anti-hatchery you will likely have a creditability problem on the site.

tight lines
S malma

For Duroboat15, et al:

Whenever hatchery practices utilize steelhead that are not native to the planted river system (ie. non-Broodstock systems, as are most common), they are introducing fish that are genetically different from the natives of that river system. This has been shown by protein electrophoretic and more modern nucleic acid-based data comparing native fish populations with hatchery stocks obtained elsewhere. Gots nothing to do with the fins man. It's in the double helix.

In fact, there are demonstrable genetic differences between, say, native steelhead in the Sky system vs. native steelhead in the Stilly system (much less a Chambers Cr clone vs. a Hoh native). This is so beautifully put together from an evolutionary standpoint, that an upper Sky native fish will have, on average, a different genetic makeup than a lower Snohomish spawner. There are genetically distinct subpopulations even within the same river system. These are preserved when lower system fish reproducibly spawn down there, and the upper river smolts return back up there to spawn with some fidelity. If you look at certain proteins the cells produce, there are reproducible allelic differences in how they are expressed, reflecting differences in gene expression and thereby indicating they are genetically different. These are interpreted in the context of a population of fish, and broad patterns of gene expression (tough to tell much about a population from just one fish). We see the difference phenotypically in how the fish are put together from different systems.

Please tell me how a Cowlitz steelhead has much in common with a good ol down home OP native. Seriously.

Much has been discussed aptly on this site about the problems with introducing fish populations with different genomes into native populations. In my opinion, one of the worst effects is crossbreeding of hatchery fish with native fish, resulting in the introduction of hatchery clone (non Broodstock, mind you) genetic material into the native gene pools. This is called introgression, and results in dilution of native genetic makeup. One could view this as another mechanism of genetic drift (which is good from a natural selective standpoint), but I'd disagree in that it is completely artificial and accelerated, and results in loss of native genomes and hence everything that makes the nates special. The concept of introgression was a theoretic one, and if I remember correctly, has been shown to have occured in certain salmonid populations in low gradient river systems like the lower Snohomish, with statistical significance. Once those unique populations are lost, they can never be recovered (it is an extinction). I reviewed the literature on this about 7 years ago for a talk, but I don't have the references handy. I might be able to find them with a lot of work somehow.

I don't want to repeat much of what Smalma and others have explained here. A lot of people are more qualified to explain these things than I am. I just think it's really important to understand that native fish runs are really special, and fragile, and worth fighting for. To say that non-Broodstock hatchery fish are the same as individuals in a native population is way off base.

Fishbadger:

Interesting info...thanks for sharing and making it understandable for us non-scientist types.

Q: Based on your comments (regarding the genetics of non-native to that particular system broodstock) then is there any scientific reasoning why the state hatcheries broodstock from a different source for other rivers? (IE: Skamania broodstock for Skagit hatchery fish?)

Based on my understanding of your comments, we would be much better off spawning native fish from that particular river system for the hatchery fish on that system. Then, if any did return to spawn naturally, there is much less chance of genetic degradation since that returning hatchery fish was spawned from another of the same system.

Does that make sense? If so, the why don't the hatcheries take their broodstock right from the river they are planting?

Mike

The Salmon and Steelhead


Hatchery Fish


Controversy, Part VII


Ernest L. Brannon, University of Idaho--March 4, 2005


Hatchery Genetic Risks and Benefits


Hatcheries fish are often alleged to have lower genetic diversity and fitness compared to fish in the wild. That is largely folklore. Genetic diversity in salmon and steelhead populations is extensive, and within-population diversity usually exceeds the diversity that exists between populations. Diversity is usually measured in what geneticists refer to as alleles in the molecular structure of DNA. Alleles are variations in the chemical signature of a specific molecular entity along the chain of entities (alleles) of the DNA. Diversity is usually a measure of quantitative differences in the frequency of those entities rather than fixed differences in the alleles themselves. For example, if there are two variations of an allele, which can be called a and b, the frequency in one population might be 80 a and 20 b, while in another population it may be 13 a and 87 b. The geneticists would conclude that the populations are different, not because they have fixed allele differences, but because the frequencies are different. Moreover, these alleles are considered neutral, which means they have no measurable effect on the organism and are not subject to natural selection. Therefore, frequency differences have no relationship to survival and reproductive fitness, suggesting that caution must be exercised in how these metrics are interpreted in assessing risk associated with artificial propagation. Variability in allele frequencies occurs regularly within natural populations, even between brood years, and should not be used as surrogates of real survival traits.

The ability to survive involves many different genes. Theory says that low levels of gene flow (1 to 10 individuals/generation) between populations will prevent differentiation. Gene exchange between hatchery and wild fish in a river segment is much higher than that level, and consequently the level of differentiation between wild and hatchery fish originating from the same gene pool will be very limited. If attempts are made to minimize genetic alterations in the hatchery segment of the population, the major influence separating the hatchery and wild components will be temporary behavioral characteristics acquired in the hatchery, and these rapidly disappear by the next generation in the wild, if not shortly after experiencing the natural environment.

Risks attributed to artificial propagation are legitimate concerns, but they are also largely theoretical, with limited evidence of any risk from artificial propagation in actual supplemented populations. Spawn timing is a genetic trait that has the most significant influence in salmonid fitness, and is the only alteration that has been associated with hatchery propagation in field studies on performance of hatchery and wild fish. However, alterations in spawn timing are easily avoided with an artificial spawning protocol that follows the native regime.

Phenotypic flexibility is also a critical fitness trait of salmonids, and is probably most evident in their response to temperature. Because fish are cold-blooded, incubation rates of salmonid embryos are highly variable depending on the temperature regime, as shown in work conducted by Tang et al. in 1987, Spawn timing in the wild is synchronized genetically with the incubation temperature of the natal stream to correctly position fry emergence in the spring. Altered emergence timing in hatcheries can be avoided simply by using the natal stream source as the water supply.

Genetic risks are associated with outbreeding (mixing of different populations), inbreeding (loss of diversity), and domestication (unintentional effects of artificial propagation). However, outbreeding depression has been primarily a problem created by the distribution and mixing of stocks in fisheries management. Long-term effects of outbreeding in natural populations has not been demonstrated. While the postulated negative effects are largely theoretical, possible beneficial effects may also occur in some cases by enhancing diversity.

Inbreeding is related to the effective population size, and much of the concern can be resolved by increasing the number of breeders and representing the diversity of the native population. Inbreeding can also be a problem in small, isolated natural populations.

Domestication represents the most likely genetic influence in hatchery fish, but selective mortality in the hatchery is relatively low, reducing its potential. There has been little research to determine whether selection in the hatchery results in higher egg to adult mortality than what occurs among wild fish. Much of the domestication evidence comes from aquaculture of captive populations that has little relevance to fish in the wild.

Artificial propagation has benefits beyond greater fishing opportunities. In contrast to the risks, benefits have not been given much attention in wild/hatchery fish evaluations. Artificial propagation is a tool to maintain population structure in the presence of potential negative environmental stochastic influences and the fishery. Hatchery fish represent the adaptive legacy of their originating population, and increasing population size through artificial propagation to avoid inbreeding, as well as maintaining genetic diversity, are benefits. With low mortality in hatcheries, rare alleles can be preserved during their freshwater rearing phase, and if they are beneficial, they have a chance to express that advantage in subsequent generations of the population. Hatcheries serve as repositories of genetic material, and the carcasses of hatchery fish are a source of nutrient recruitment in freshwater streams.

Contrary to the hatchery critics, artificial propagation should be viewed as a powerful tool in the conservation of wild fish that can be relatively free of long-term genetic risks, when working with local broodstock. Using integrated hatchery/wild fish, population structure of the native fish can be maintained in the presence of reduced habitat, marine related population crashes, and selective fisheries.

(References can be found in Fisheries 29(9):12-31).


Dr. Ernest L. Brannon is a professor at the Center for Salmonid and Freshwater Species at Risk, University of Idaho, Moscow. He is also Chairmen of the Salmon Committee for the Salmonid Foundation

Isochrome - I suspect it is because at some point in the distant past, the Game Department decided - as have many wildlife agencies - that there was a "need" for a species to occupy a niche that could be accessed by sport fishers. One only has to look at what we've done to our native fishes over the years by bringing brown trout from Europe, brook trout from the east coast, carp, shad, stripers, smallmouth bass, crappie, bluegill, walleye, northern pike, grass carp and others to meet someones demand for fish from there home state or country. Then we toss in our hybrids - tiger muskie, splake, tiger trout, wipers because they can reduce rough fish populations or are fun to catch/pretty to look at.

On a local level, someone saw a "need" for an early run steelhead so folks could be out on the river in November, December, and January before the "wild" fish started showing up. Chambers Creek had an early run and now that stock is "locally adapted" to almost every steelhead river on the coast and in to Puget Sound. The same holds true for the summer run steelhead using the Skamania stock to "supplement" an existing run or build a new run.

Fortunately, although probably too late to effect any major shift/change in our lifetimes, the Dept has been re-evaluating its process and is now trying to use "locally adapted" stocks rather than moving fish between drainages. One example, for the early run component, is the cessation of Bogachiel-Chambers for the rivers on the Straits. It looks like they'll be using Elwha stock for future plantings from the Hoko east to the Dungeness. Dungeness fish might also be considered at some point.

As for "wild" stock, I fully agree that the Dept should be using local "wild" fish as the base stock and not import fish from other drainages.

Here you go Mike

http://gamefishin.com/gfboard/forum_posts.asp?TID=3226&PN=1

Sorry...I'm not a paid member of that site...would rather support the sponsors here..

Those guys could be just what you propose...but let's disagree on the facts instead of debating personality.

Back when I was in Bible college I used to debate doctrines with this other preacher...and he would go for a little while, and when he could no longer Scripturally support his claims, he would begin personal attacks. It wasn't that he was "wrong", but insted of using his brain and knowledge he wanted to make it that I was the "bad guy" and fog up the fact that he could not support his positions.

There are a LOT of "amateur" or "arm chair" fish biologists out there, but some of these guys are the ones that have to make the decisions and then be responsible for the outcomes; far more responsibility than we have to bear.

There DOES seem to be a lot of science on both sides of the isle...and I find it interesting that we have differing viewpoints arising from essentially the same research materials.

Hey...I saw a guy bag a nice Dolly (maybe 5#?) today with one of them 14' monsters you guys call "fly" rods. Was quite a site!

Mike

Locust,

I think your previous post is an oversimplification. Salmonid diversity is more complicated than just allele frequence. Heck, steelhead have chromosome numbers ranging from 58 to 64 depending on the strain you look at.

Thus the statement that "Genetic diversity in salmon and steelhead populations is extensive, and within-population diversity usually exceeds the diversity that exists between populations." is a clear exaggeration at best.

Variation in chromomsome number within a species is somewhat unusual and certainly a clear indication of extreme diversity within the species. I'm not aware of any steelhead strains that have within species variation in chromosome number. Are you?

Anyhow, your hypothesis that integrated hatchery and wild stocks will be fine genetically speaking seems weak to me at best. It is certainly untested. Yet we stand on the cusp of implementing it full scale statewide. Don't you think a few generations of experimentation is in order on a slecet few systems to confirm your hypothesis before we do a statewide experiment?


BTW, you never did address what S. malma had to say about first generation local stock hatchery fish and their lack of spawning success in the wild. This is the biggest potential problem I see, yet you don't even address it or the data supporting it.

I'm not anti-hatchery. I like the increased fishing opportunity which hatcheries provide.

But I believe that blurring the boundaries between hatchery and Native Steelhead would be a terrible mistake, benefitting only commercial interests with designs on our rivers and riparian habitat.

The metrics of locality for "local stocks" haven't even been determined. Like Fishbadger said, there can be more than one local stock in a given river system. We get sloppy and talk about Skykomish Natives, or Hoh Natives like that is one local stock. Hell, for all we know there might be a dozen stocks in each of those rivers which are adapted to spawning in different parts of the river system.

There is a lot that we don't know about Steelhead. It's not knowing that we don't know which gets us into trouble. Merging a sloppily identified and hatchery raised "local stock", possibly made up of mixed locally adapted stocks from a given river system, with true Native Steelheed is irresponsible.

"The Real Thing", as Fishing Physician once called it, is precious and fragile. Let's protect our Native Steelhead by leaving them in their rivers. Let's protect their habitat from commercial interests who want to make the problem of endangered Native Steelhead go away by re-defining it out existance.
Let's not get suckered into blurring the boundaries between hatchery fish and The Real Thing.
SS

Chromosome numbers: A very interesting point. Actually, this subject was what first turned me on to fish genetics and prompted me back to grad school from a stream survey job with CFG. Thorgaard (WSU) has published much on the distribution of chromosome numbers in steelhead populations. He has demonstrated a high degree of intrastrain variability, on both systems with and without introduction from outside populations. As an example, a sample of Quinalt steelhead was found to have fish with both 58 and 59 chromosomes. The Rogue, with no introductions from outside systems, exhibits 2n numbers of 58, 59, 60 chromosomes. as does the Alsea. There are many more examples, and I know this first hand 'cuz I've spent many days of my graduate career counting chromosomes in Gary's lab!

I'd like to quote from a "lost" publication from a meeting held in Arcata in 1977 on steelhead management. (1977!!!)

"There are generally only two attitudes toward the implications of the use of hatcheries in steelhead enhancement and management programs which unfortunately divides those interested into those for and those against. The differences in opinion reflect a lack of knowledge as well as a lack of understanding of hatchery objectives."

I think that everyone even remotely connected to this issue would intuitively know that hatcheries cannot solve all manner of management problems. But how can we state that they are the cause of all evil? Previous hatchery programs have no doubt made grievous errors by indiscriminantly planting fish from wherever surplus eggs were available. But others are equally wrong when they become so righteous as to call hatchery management programs unjustified and bent on destroying all runs of native fish on behalf of the "Water Nazis" (whoever they are).

I've worked as a professional in various aspects of fisheries for many years, and I know that in general biologists, hatchery personnel, and sportsmen are reasonably knowledgeable about fisheries (this board is a great example). That said, we are left with the obvious conclusion that differences of opinion regarding the potential of hatcheries are based upon a lack of understanding or mistrust. I'd have to pick the former because we are all above holding petty mistrusts in the name of saving our fisheries (? )

Many arguments that I've read here suggest that a high degree of adaptive genetic variability is essential for the success of native stocks and that this variability is maintained by natural selection. The latter is extremely difficult for me to accept, since selection is (as mentioned by many here) a very powerful force. This force, however, does not cause variability, but instead is one that favors uniformity. Additionally, the common belief that hatchery rearing reduces genetic variation has simply not been proven when good practices are followed. The challenge becomes one of applying basic animal breeding concepts (common sense) in propogation efforts in such a a way as to: (1) enhance or maintain the fishery in a desired direction (not simply increasing numbers of fish), and (2) conserve, to the greatest extent possible, the genetic diversity of the species. By utilizing well-designed breeding and rearing programs we can capitalize on the changes that ALWAYS occur no matter what type of system we speak of by directing those changes to benefit the entire fishery cycle rather than just the hatchery phase.

As for the genetic identity of populations and stocks or strains, when I started in this business the idea of gene frequency analysis through protein electrophoresis was first being utilized by Fred(s) Allendorf and Utter. Allendorf described three major population groupings of rainbow trout (Upper Columbia R and Fraser R., west slope of the Cascades poulations, and "red band" populations. It was presumed that the inland group (upper C&F rivers) descended from a common ancestral stock that migrated to a large inland basin and was isolated during the last glacial period (10K years ago) while the coastal group represented descendants of Asiatic or American coatal population that existed beyond the range of the glacial mass. Now, with much more refined molecular tools, we speak of resolving differences down to the nearest 100 m of a river system. But what on earth do these differences mean evolutionarily? The limit to which genetic differences can be used to define natural populations of steelhead varies according to the amount of straying (or introgression) and/or isolation. The usefulness of defining two spawning populations occupying adjacent areas of a particular drainage on the basis of molecular markers is IMO ridiculous unless geographical or physiological barriers exist that preclude long term gene flow between them.

Sorry guys, gotta get to work here or I'll soon have all of my days to be posting and no chance of those days on a tropical sea. Looking forward to more discussions, but gotta say the personal attacks are way out of line.

Fishyologist - well said. We need to keep the communication lines open and we need to look at the long range issues of habitat protection and, where appropriate, stock protection. Hatcheries are not, as you say, bad in and of themselves. The problems go back to the practices used starting over 100 years ago. We didn't have the expertise even 10 years ago that we have today.

We can start the process to protect/recover species by using "hatchery" methods.....condor, peregrine falcon, whooping crane come to mind on the land side and many states are now starting to use hatcheries for recovery/maintenance programs for local fish stocks.

I don't know any hatchery folks who don't want to do the right thing and many are frustrated because of the politics driving agency operations. WDFW has their future brood document that dictate how many fish can be released and those numbers can impact the local fishing opportunities. They are also implementing procedures to ensure as broad a mix as possible on egg take and fertilization methods.

We can use hatcheries as a supplement to "wild" populations. A hatchery can serve as a bank by live spawning an appropriate number of "wild" fish and then releasing the progeny in the same waters as the adults came from. The adults can be released and maybe they'll come back again...

People are on both sides of the issue and we can't wear blinders. We have to have open minds and look for the best solutions. We have to make our feelings known to the decision makers. Most importantly, we have to use a healthy amount of common sense and good science or we can kiss our resource good-bye.

Locust:
You cite a statement that “Genetic diversity in salmon and steelhead populations is extensive, and within-population diversity usually exceeds the diversity that exists between populations.” How do you support that statement regarding degree of diversity? I agree with Geoduck up there. It sounds backwards to me. Do you have any of your own material here? Sounds like there is a teleprompter nearby.

Isochrome’s question (which is really important) sounds like it was answered better than I could have by bushbear.

Yeah I’m definitely an armchair fish biologist. I have a sound understanding of population genetics, disease and epidemiology (in humans as my day job), but I’m not that current in salmon and steelhead genetics. I think bushbear summed it up nicely above me here. Nice thread to everybody who partook, on what I think is a very important topic.

Like the song says:

"Ain't nothin' like the real thing baby, ain't nothin' like the real thing...."

In case there's any doubt about those lyrics, here's proof that a picture's worth a thousand words:





Does anyone out there really believe these are the same fish?

(NOTE: edited for smaller JPG's... the first ones I put up were HUGE!)

Sweeeeeeeeet.

Locust: If you would just post a link to the site where you are getting all these essays, we could simply go and read what we want.
We could veen read some of the political rants posted there - if we wanted to.

We could read articles with titles such as this:


Lying Leftist Lunatics Loot Oregon Ratepayers

Democrats Poised to Seize Water (and Power) in Washington


I wonder if there might be a political bias here?

Dave, everybody is political. We cant afford to use political affiliation as a barometer for credibility. You have a chance to educate yourself and your wasting that chance.


Fishbadger, I defer to the experts.

Locust:

It is arrogant and erroneous to assume that I have not taken the opportunity to educate myself. I read everything I can get my hands on, including the stuff you keep posting, most of which I read well before you posted it.

That said, it would be foolhardy to simply accept as the gospel ideas that are out of sync with most of what I read and that come from an organization that seems to have a strong political bias.

For many years we were able to read scientific papers, funded by the tobacco companies, that told us cigarettes were quite safe. I guess we should have accepted those reports because they were written by scientists.

Don’t get me wrong, I am not anti hatchery. I would like to see continued hatchery plants and even expanded planting, where we can do so with no or little harm to existing wild stocks.

But I am very wary of those who would "solve" our habitat and water resource problems by simply pumping out more hatchery fish. And that seems to be the agenda that is coming out of the Salmonid Foundation.

I have repeatedly tried to find out just who the Salmonid Foundation is, where they get there funding and what their agenda is. I have had no luck. If you are so concerned about my education, how about letting us all know the answers to those questions.

Dave,
I thought we already covered this earlier in this thread. I wont re-post it. You know who the principles are, you know them. What are you saying Dave?

Who says their funded by anyone? Do you know of "Funds" available to them? Why do you attack the messenger?

I find it odd that you use an example of inaccurate science to support the current anti-hatchery science.

Well said Locust !!

Locust:

Thanks for joining into the non copy and paste realm.

If you feel like a lot of people have been asking you questions which you haven't answered, then you would be correct (DV's right).

The Salmon and Steelhead

Hatchery Fish Controversy, Part III

Ernest L. Brannon, University of Idaho--January 24, 2005


Management not Propagation


The major problem responsible for much of the controversy about hatcheries has been confusing the effects of artificial propagation with the effects of fisheries management. Managers routinely used excess hatchery production to support weaker runs in other streams for the sole purpose of providing greater harvest opportunity. This resulted in the introduction of fish poorly adapted to the receiving environment, and little sustained natural production would occur. In other cases, for management objectives, hatchery populations were artificially selected to return earlier than the original stock. This resulted in the hatchery fish being displaced from the temporal synchrony necessary for good survival under natural conditions. In other cases performance was exacerbated by releasing large numbers of fish in one location with no thought about stream carrying capacity, wild fish in residence, or water conditions. The reduced effectiveness of the hatchery fish to reproduce naturally in those instances was not from the influence of artificial propagation, but rather from management decisions that disregarded the biological requirements for fish to successfully reproduce in those river systems. Hatchery fish became the scapegoats for poor fisheries management.



Consequently, to accurately assess hatchery fish performance in the wild, it is necessary to remove the influence of management from the equation, and look only at those differences in performance related to the process of artificial propagation. If the process of hatchery propagation results in substantive reduction in survival, then that is the critical information needed to reassess or reform the application of hatchery technology. If the problem is the negative influence of management policy on hatchery fish performance, that problem has nothing to do with hatchery propagation.



The confusion between process and management has caused much of the near hysteria we witness in some of the sportsmen’s literature. An example is a recent article in the Osprey, the newsletter of the Federation of Fly Fishers. They reported the poor performance of hatchery steelhead released in Forks Creek, in the Willipa River basin , compared to wild steelhead. The wild fish outperformed by the hatchery fish, and the difference was attributed to artificial propagation. However, the hatchery fish were not from the Forks Creek population, but rather a Bogachiel River/Chambers Creek stock hybrid that spawned earlier than the native fish. Therefore, attributing poor performance to the affects of artificial propagation was nonsense. The hatchery fish did not originate from Forks Creek, and thus it was not possible to measure the influence of hatchery experience because the fish were poorly adapted to the receiving stream in the first place.



The difference between process and management is not confusing just to the sporting public, but we find a similar problem among some fisheries scientists. This was exemplified in an article published in Fisheries by the Independent Scientific Advisory Board to the National Marine Fisheries Service. In response to a question about letting excess hatchery produced salmon and steelhead spawn in the wild, they advised against it, and listed several publications in support of their position. They felt that the earlier return and spawn timing of hatchery adults, and their frequently younger ages at spawning, were evidence of domestication. Domestication is unintentional natural selection of traits while in captivity changing the genetics of the population, However, they were mistaken. Hatchery populations that return earlier do so because brood fish have been selected consistently from the earlier part of the returning run. Spawn timing, as a genetic characteristic, can be altered simply by what segment of the returning population is selected for breeding in the hatchery. Therefore, spawn timing can be maintained by using the correct breeding protocol. Early return and spawning is not the given result of artificial propagation.



Similarly, younger age at return is not an inherent property of artificial propagation. The use of warmer temperatures during incubation accelerate development rates, resulting in earlier onset of feeding. Warmer temperatures and higher feeding rates promote rapid growth, and large fingerlings size for their age at release hastens maturation, causing fish to return a year sooner than what would be common in the natural environment. However, timing and growth rate of hatchery fish can be controlled to mimic that of the wild fish. Younger fish at return is not the given result of artificial propagation.



The overriding problem in both the sportsmen’s misinterpretation of scientific information and in the misapplication of scientific literature by fisheries professionals examining artificial propagation of salmon and steelhead, is the negative preconception about hatcheries before they look at the data. In the cases cited above, and common in a large part of the literature on hatchery fish performance, there is a bias that hatchery fish are inferior before the evaluation process begins. Consequently, careful reading of the reports or examination of the original data from reference studies is not exercised, and conclusions of the original investigator and the experimental design used in the original study are not critically examined. In the case with the Federation of Fly Fishers, they didn’t realize they were comparing apples and oranges. In the case of the Independent Scientific Advisory Board, they were not careful in discerning what was actually being tested in the literature cited. In both examples, poor performance of hatchery fish was attributed to artificial propagation when the presence of other overriding variables was overlooked. This has been a common problem in research on hatchery fish, and it has biased our understanding of artificial propagation. Further discussion about these problems will be conducted next time when laboratory studies are examined.



Dr. Ernest L. Brannon is a professor at the Center for Salmonid and Freshwater Species at Risk, University of Idaho, Moscow. He is also Chairmen of the Salmon Committee for the Salmonid Foundation.

You can read all Dr. Ernie Brannon papers here

http://www.nwfishermen.org

If you would like to see what happens when wild fish are left to their own accord in these times of poor ocean survival ,look no further than Vacouver island.The steelhead of this once great fishing mecca are disappearing at an alarming rate ,in fact some wild genetics will be lost forever.WALP ,the govt ministry responsible for steelhead stocks ,has completely turned their backs on the steelhead ,no money for hatcheries ,no money for habitat work .In fact the only river holding it's own on the island is the Stamp ,and this river has a large hatchery facility.We have had the idea that hatchery fish are killing off the wild fish pushed down our throats ,yet the only rivers worth fishing around here have hatcheries on them.The Gold river ,the once great wild river of vancouver island ,is seeing diminishing returns ,this kind of thing is happening all over.Rivers that once had fish numbering in the thousands are lucky if they see a 100 fish ,this can be said of all the WILD fish rivers of the south coast.We also have the steelhead society ramming the Wild fish ,wild rivers song down our throats.Nice idea ,that these fish will do better if they are left alone ,but reality is showing us that the decline is happening so fast it may be too late to save many stocks .Our govt will allow massive destructive fish farming all along the smolt migration routes ,but then says that wild brood hatchery efforts are destructive and non productive.They will also allow gillnetting on the fraser river(for chum eggs) ,during the big push of wild summer runs such as the Thompson fish ,then close the fishery to sportsman ,the same sportsmen that fight to save these runs .
All you guys who feel that these wild brood hatchery programs are harming your wild fish ,just take a look at the disaster we are facing here in Canada ,once known as the hot bed of steelheading .80% of vancouver island rivers are now closed to steelhead fishing and the list is growing.The mainland is no different ,swim counts have a hard time finding ten steelhead in many streams ,but hey they might have been wild.
The natives are netting 24 -7 ,our govt has a policy of turning the other cheek regarding illegal net fisheries ,yet they are proposing a bait ban province wide on all streams .
I am envious of the fishing reports I see from south of the border ,at this point I would just like to have steelhead to chase,I could care less if they have an adipose fin.Why is it that people who are against hatcheries always point out the practices of hatcheries of 30 years ago and not the selective wild brood stocking programs of today.Be careful what you wish for ,the reality is not what you think it will be .The steelhead society of BC should have the logo wild rivers ,no fish ,nice legacy of a group who started out to protect the magnificent steelhead,this coming from a member.
Heres a 14 lb hatchery doe I caught yesterday ,fought like hell and I couldn't care less that she was raised to smolt stage in a hatchery .

I'll add some leavity to this debate. Native steelhead vs. hatchery fish are like the state patrol vs. city cops. State patrolmen are wide ranging and they strike swiftly without warning. They demand respect. City cops on the other hand, mill around in one place, generally, in a state of confussion. Hatchery fish are the "Barney Fifes" of the gene pool.

Dr. Brannon worked for Exxon during the Valdez trial and has always claimed that the oil spill did no damage to the salmon there...i believe he's worked for the Idaho water users assoc as well.....so i take a big chunk of pa'akai(salt) when i read what he writes....

You make some sound points, but I suspect you do not understand current hatchery practices here in the U.S. Your hatcheries are light years ahead ours. By and large we still use fish that originated in other rivers, (Chambers Creek and Skamania fish are found in rivers all over the state.) We do not take brood stock with hook and line; we do not try to use only wild fish for brood stock and our hatchery fish are of nowhere near the quality of yours.

I know Vancouver Island rivers are hurting and have no idea why. I do know that in most cases hatchery fish are not the problem, but I doubt they are the solution either. I think you should consider using hatcheries to sustain wild strain of fish from that river system. But I would caution against simply dumping the rivers full of hatchery fish.

Until a few years ago most Vancouver Island rivers produced considerably more fish per angler day than did our hatchery panted rivers.

I have had many 10 fish days on the Gold, and almost never have had that many fish on one of our hatchery planted rivers.

Remember too that some anglers tend to exaggerate. I have not looked at our catch record data recently, but a few years ago approximately 45% of our steel headers reported catching zero steelhead in a year. As I recall less than 20% caught more than 25 in a year. A few years back the catch per angler day on the Gold wild fish was near one per anglers.

You are right; we should be careful what we wish for. There is a reason so many U.S. anglers head to Canada to fish steelhead. and so few Canadians come this way.

What Sol said.

bodysurf. . .thanks for helping to put this all in context. I think it is starting to make sense,

fb

Dave Vedder said. "Remember too that some anglers tend to exaggerate"

I ressemble that remark! :p

Sol,

That was a pretty funny analogy...!

Fish on...

Todd

my older brother told me that boldt ruling was the law and that we had no other choice but to follow it. i read it to and i don't see how a hatchery helps an indian any moor then a white fisherman. so if all are fish gone how do to we keep fishing if not for hatcheryfish ?

if not for hatchery fish then what can we fish for ?
my brother said that Mr. Brannon was a teacher in his school and was well respected at the time. whats going on with him if he was the teacher of all our brothers students who are now saying he was wrong ? I am gettin concerned if this is what I am going to be taught and then be told that my teachers are all screwed up. what do the biologist think about Dr. Brannon and his past teachings ?

I really appreciate all the previous discussions although I wish we could have some input from the anti-hatchery advocates on that last cut/paste from Dr. Brannon by Locust; especially from Mr. McMillan from Washington Trout.

Dr Brannon seems to indicate that it has been poor management practices that have given the hatchery fish a bad name while the anti-hatchery groups want you to believe that any returning hatchery adult that spawns in the wild is typhoid Mary/John. Well, which actually is it?

Let’s take an integrated hatchery strategy on a river system with a depressed wild run but still enough habitat to support a larger population. A hatchery raised fry of “river of origin stock,” raised to smolt at the hatchery, domesticated to the extreme, is released. Now this fish, having the luxury to have escaped most of the selective impacts for the first, say 1/3 of its life, has made it successfully out to the marine environment, survived, and is now returning as an adult, and lets just pretend that it was imprinted good enough to make it back to it’s original natal stream/spawning area. So now this fish pairs up with another ripe fish, either wild or hatchery. They spawn in the river. What would be the egg to adult success of this spawning pair? Or in other words, what would the contribution be of this spawning pair (brood) to the next spawning brood (F1)? Then what would the F1’s year brood group (if any) contribution be to the following generation (F2)? Dr Brannon would seem to indicate that, in a properly run hatchery, with appropriate broodstock, there would be an adequate F1 generation spawning wild which would produce an increased F2 generation and so on. The anti-hatchery groups are adamant claiming that the original hatchery brood would produce few, if any; F1’s and even fewer or zero F2’s. Which is it?

Beezer, good points. The Cowlitz late winter run is a good example of your scenario. They started slow and are now rebounding. Point is, they are a locally adapted stock. The early run would have probably been as successful because it is also a locally adapted stock.

For that matter, the summer run would probably succeed, as it has been adapting successfully for 30+ years.

the skookumchuck uses local stock....and they seem to get good returns...but as far as the success rate of those guys spawning in the wild i'd have to say is near zero....i rarely ever see any wild smolts and haven't caught a wild/feral fish there in years...lots of hatchery fish though...but the wild/feral fish i have caught there stand out in memory for their fight and strength more than any of the hatchery guys..
i'm not anti-hatchery having worked in and around them for many years...but i know they are no panacea even when run well...

the Kalama Research Team has been releasing smolts from 'wild' parents for a few years now and they should soon be getting to the point where the spawning success etc. of those guys
can be pinned down....it'll be interesting to see...

something about southern BC steelhead returns. If you take 3 river systems out of the picture (stamp/somass,cowichan and chillawack/vedder) There are more steelhead expected to return this year to the Skagit and Snohomish systems than the entire south coast of BC including vancouver island. We routinely fish rivers with returns of 100-200 fish or even less. A local vancouver river was swam by our WLAP people counting steelhead at the end of February and they counted 3 winter steelhead in the entire river along with 11 summer steelhead. The river is open to steelheading with a 2 fish per day limit on hatchery fish. Good management or what. The ten fish days on the Gold river are a thing of the distance past with total run sizing below 500 winter steelhead. You guys may think your hatchery programs are poor and they don't help wild fish but you should come up here and fish over no fish abd see how poor it really is. I have purchased a washington state license because our winter steelheading here is so good. I just have to now get over US custom delays of about one hour checking out to see if I own my boat,truck,etc. I would fish washington more if crossing the border was less stressful.

More from Dr. Brannon,



The Salmon and Steelhead



Hatchery Fish Controversy, Part VIII



Ernest L. Brannon, University of Idaho--March 14, 2005



Hatchery Management Reform





The objective of the series on the hatchery fish controversy has been to provide a perspective on the role of hatcheries in the recovery of salmon and steelhead populations. There is a striking contrast in the viewpoints that we see about hatchery fish in the Pacific Northwest. Some of the opposition to hatcheries is very curious. I understand the dichotomy that is politically driven, and unfortunately has engulfed our natural resources, and I under- stand the largely naïve academic and emotional opposition to hatcheries among those referred to as the green community that object to any alteration of the natural environment. What I don’t understand is the opposition of commercial fishermen and sport-fishing groups such as the Northwest Steelheaders, the ocean trollers and Trout Unlimited, who have clearly benefited from hatchery programs.



The logic of this opposition to hatchery fish is characterized by a recent guest columnist in the Seattle Post-Intelligencer, who wrote: Hatchery fish are more likely to be eaten by predators and get lost in migration and they are less successful in spawning . . .in the wild their progeny are less likely to contribute to the next generation. . . . and by interbreeding with wild fish, harm the species ability to adapt to river and ocean cycles.



Such rhetoric, apart from being in error, obviously misses the point. Hatchery fish can’t be blamed for the mistakes of fisheries management. The culpability for most problems associated with hatchery fish is associated with the decision makers that use hatcheries in their management strategy, as mentioned in article 3. Therefore, the last article in this series is a perspective on the management reforms needed in hatchery programs.



The important point to remember is that hatchery fish represent the genetic legacy of their originating native stocks, and when they are used in conjunction with the wild remnants of their parental population, they can contribute to and assist in maintaining their wild kin. Although rather sophisticated and complex theoretical arguments can be proposed about the risks of artificial propagation, when the evidence is examined for biological meaningful effects, most of the problems with hatchery fish are where, when, and why we put them out in the first place. If artificially propagated fish are released in streams foreign to their origin, out of synchrony with their natural timing, released in large numbers, or released purely for increased harvest opportunity, major problems can be anticipated.



The genetic legacy of these fish is not threatened by conservation hatchery propagation when they are used to supplement their wild counterparts, and if artificial propagation follows the protocol to mimic the wild fish model, hatchery fish can be as successful as wild fish. That is the essence of recovery. Yes, there is a level of risk associated with culture practices that train the fish for the hatchery environment, but if the native timing patterns are maintained in the hatchery population, influences from fish culture are temporary and do not alter behavior of the progeny spawned in the wild. Also, the power and efficiency of natural selection to mold the performance of these fish in the wild should not be underestimated.



The fact that these species do so well when brought into captivity, and then rapidly readjust to the natural environment when released, speaks highly of their innate capacity and flexibility to meet such challenges. Measures can be taken in artificial propagation that buttress the sustaining ability of the wild salmon and steelhead populations. The key is to improve resource management by putting the biological needs of the cultured fish first-place in the management strategy. Attending to the biological needs requires knowledge about the carrying capacity of the system in which hatchery fish are employed, the size and age structure of the population being supplemented, and the timing of the various life history phases.



The brood stock and the breeding protocol followed by the hatchery must be selected to represent the genetic diversity of the target population. The eggs should be incubated in substrate, and rearing protocol should use the wild juveniles as the model for size and time of release to the natural stream. Lower rearing densities, actions to reduce domestication influences, and feeding regimes that fit the seasonal pattern experienced by the wild fish should be employed.



To maximize the performance potential upon release, out-plants of juveniles should not be released at one site, or released in large numbers at any one time. Nighttime releases of fish evacuated of food before hauling should also be part of the standard procedures for direct releases, and where possible acclamation ponds should be built where the fish can recover from the transportation stress and disorientation, and be allowed to emigrate volitionally from the site.



Research also needs to be part of hatchery propagation to resolve the uncertainties associated with the culture environment and to hone the process. Differentiating between domestication and temporary acquired behavior induced by the hatchery environment, and evaluating any affects of that environment, are necessary to improve the technology. New hatchery concepts, such as engineered streams, also need to be assessed as alternatives to standard hatchery designs, where more natural stream-like environments can be developed to accommodate the production of wild-type fish. Decentralization of production and redistributing much smaller facilities to the target streams is also a concept to pursue in future development of the hatchery concept. Using the natal stream as the water source and the sizing the facilities based on the local needs of the target population is the optimal approach in restoration and maintenance of wild salmon and steelhead.



In conclusion, denying hatchery fish from spawning in the wild or approving their extermination is to a disregard their historical lineages and to waste sources of genetic diversity that is important to the sustaining ability and adaptive evolution of the species. The progeny of hatchery fish from the local stock performing in the wild will be indistinguishable from their native counterparts if management addresses the biological requirements needed in the wild. Natural production in the habitat remaining is not sufficient to provide the recreational and commercial harvest fisheries that are important to the fishing public. The challenges of multiple water uses means that we have to manage smarter, and smarter means that we don’t limit our options to use artificial propagation as a tool for the betterment of the salmon and steelhead resources.



Dr. Ernest L. Brannon is a professor at the Center for Salmonid and Freshwater Species at Risk, University of Idaho, Moscow. He is also Chairmen of the Salmon Committee for the Salmonid Foundation.

These seem to be valid points. What he describes above is very nearly the way B.C. hatcheries have been doing things. Their hatchery steelhead seem far superior to most that we produce and I can’t prove this, but I suspect they are much more successful at spawning as well.

By using wild fish for brood stock and by catching those fish with hook and line, as is done in B.C. for most steelhead brood stock and some Chinook stocks, you get fish that are native to the river, that had wild parents that were biters. Unfortunately, many for the suggestion listed above may prove to be much more expensive than our current hatchery practices.

I believe we need to wait to see what our hatchery scientific reform group comes up with, and then implement their suggestions. (This is the most comprehensive look at our hatchery practices ever undertaken.) But we may find that improving overall hatchery practices will require much more funding or a cutback on production.

it's kinda funny in a way....try to rear hatchery fish in a 'natural enviroment'...which is exactly how many of the hatcheries are doing things now(nature ponds,underwater feeding,lower densities,predators allowed in ponds etc..) but for all the effort and extra space,money and labor needed to do that you hafta ask... is it worth more to devote that effort and energy into getting fish spawning in the river that will do well rather than getting wild smolts that survive in a hatchery?
there's one rub it seems....
or is this the 'wise use' movement trying to deter the issue from dealing with habitat issues instead(like dams maybe)....it's all about getting hatchery fish counted as part of the ESA fish and the ongoing lawsuit....

Sorry, I've been outta the country for a few days, will try and catch up here. Not to pick on anyone, but there are alot of misconceptions regarding population genetics that are important to clear up in the discussions here. I'll start with a quote from Fishbadger:
First of all, even under the worst cases of hatchery management, there is little in the published genetics literature to suggest that hatchery stocks are anything near homozygous "clones" as you call them. In fact, recent findings using DNA markers (not the ancient protein electrophoretic ones) suggest that hatchery breeding practices can easily maintain or capitalize on existing genetic variation and often demonstrate high levels of heterozygosity. Secondly, your wording indicates a clear confusion regarding population genetics terminology (whether it be human or otherwise). Random genetic drift is very different than "introgression" (BTW the population genetics term for introgression is migration), with drift not being related at all to crossing among or between populations, but is instead the random changes in gene frequency that occur normally in small populations. In fact your statement that genetic drift is a good thing from a natural selective standpoint makes absolutely no sense at all! Drift and selection are opposing forces, tending to maintain balance in populations. As for effects of migration (introgression), there are many examples of straying in natural steelhead populations. It is an important part of all salmonid biology. In fact, coastal Oregon populations show remarkable levels of straying, even to the point that fish will leave streams they have entered, head back to the ocean, and be later found spawning in systems miles away. It is a proven, natural way of maintaining balance in gene pools.

In conservation genetics literature, particulary as it relates to aquatic systems, intraspecific hybridization is often cited as a threat to the "genetic integrity" of rare native species. But what is genetic integrity, and how do we know it when we see it? Lately, the term seems to be used by scientists and laypersons alike as little more than a euphanism for genetic purity. In reality, there are great difficulties in applying these definitions in wild systems. I have, and continue, to propose that genetic integrity should have a strong functional component, and that it be determined case-by-case. There are recent good examples in the literature, particularly with amphibians.

Another misconception that appears through this thread (sorry to pick on you again, fishbadger) was seen in the following stqatement:

" You cite a statement that “Genetic diversity
in salmon and steelhead populations is extensive, and within-population diversity usually exceeds the diversity that exists between populations.” How do you support that statement regarding degree of diversity? I agree with Geoduck up there. It sounds backwards to me. Do you have any of your own material here? Sounds like there is a teleprompter nearby."

I'll respond to this one. In fact, there are many examples that show intrapopulation genetic variation to be higher than interpopulation variation. This has been shown in native populations of frogs (Scribner, et al. in Molecular Biology and Evolution 11(5):787), humans (YES HUMANS, you should know this one; Da Silva et al Am J Phys Anth 109:425, trees (Kara et al Silvae Genetica 46:2-3:155). That's just the ones directly at my fingertips, there are lots of others. For fish it is less clear, but a recent study of natural populations in Alaska (Olson et al Trans. AFS 133(2):476) show low interpopulation diversity and high intrapopulation diversity in chum salmon, while the opposite was true for coho. This suggests that no one approach will work for each species, and assessment of genetic variation must be done for each species under study.


I agree that the recent issues on Vancouver Island suggest that the health of our salmonid stocks are far beyond a hatchery or non-hatchery issue. We simply don't know enough to restrict our options at this point.

Lastly, why did Geoduck not respond to the chromosome numbers issue? I think that the chromosome numbers especially demonstrate that there could possibly be only a few large metapopulations.

I'll get outta the way here and await the shotgun blasts.

Ah, yes. I forgot to thank you for pointing out athat strains do have chromosome number variation. An interesting point.

Nontheless, all the strains you mention have less variation than steelhead as a species (58-64) exhibits . Thus I still think the within population diveristy being equivalent to the diversity of the entire population is a bit of fruity thing to say. How can this be true unless the population is efficitively one group? I don't see how part of a population can have more diveristy than the entire population. Perhaps I am just being dense.

The other issue is how one samples diveristy. With chromosome numbers of course it is simple and I think we have hashed over the issues. You just count them.
With genomic variation it is obviously much more complex and sampling becomes a huge issue. Do you count only coding single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) or do you count them all. You malign electrophoretic techniques as being outdated. Certainly they are older and can only detect functional changes, but maybe its only funcitonal changes we should concern ourselves with. There are many non-coding snps in the steelhead genome. How many nobody knows, but way more than are practical to deal with. How do you decide which are accurate measures of diversity? I seriously doubt that outside of genome wide human and mouse studies there has been any effor to catalog the most comon polymorphisms let alone assess them in individual populations. The bottom line to all this is that even assessing genetic diversity is tricky and comes down to how you sample your SNPs.


As for hatcheries not screwing up fishereis. I agree that the documentation is limited at best. However, you want us to take the absence of evidence that hatcheries have caused problems as evidence for their utility. That is a ridiculously flimsy argument.

Here is an equally flimsy counter arguement. Hatcheries were in operation in this state during the declines of most major runs of chinook, steelhead and coho. Therefore they are the cause of these declines.

I believe neither of these weak arguments. The question really is did hatcheries play any role in these declines. I believe their role wa proably minor. However, my opinion is not the end all be all. We need facts. To do that we need to conduct some experiments.

Thus as I suggested before, we should conduct this integration of hatchery and wild populations on a selcet few systems (instead of statewide) and see how it goes.

The idea of doing this untested statewide is just plain irresponsible. The motivation is no doubt political exediency and/or greed.
The logic goes something like this:
Nobody wants more wild Chinook and steelhead runs to get ESA listed, why not just make hatchery fish politically equivalent (who cares about biology) to wild fish. Then everyoe can continue to fish, mine, log, develop, dam, and pollute with a clear conscience. Just go look at the hatchery trap there's lots of fish coming back things must be ok with the wild fish . . .

All I ask for is a simple experiment on one or two rivers that will never get done because political realities trump biological ones. Instead this will be done as a state wide experiment with all our wild runs at risk. The results maybe disasterous or benign to wild fish we won't know for years.

Fishologist, if I were you I couldn't in good conscience advocate such a widesweaping experiment without stronger evidence that it would work. I know you belive it will work, but what if you're wrong?

Steelhead (anadromous O. mykiss) with a 2n number of 64? Excuse me while I call BS. There are stocks of O. mykiss with different 2n numbers, but not with demonstrated anadromy in the NW.

As for "functional" differences in allozyme markers, you should know as well as I that these also are neutral markers that convey no selective advantage or disadvantage to the organism, indeed a "functioning" equivalent to an SNP. The point though I made earlier with allozymes is that even then, if you go back to the work of the "FREDS", there are "coastal" ans "inland" populations. NO MORE, NO LESS. Same as the chromosome data.

A human example. If I look at the genetic similarity within my own house, and compare it to that of the rest of the neighborhood, I find a unique population. Do I want to maintain the health of that population over the long term without migration? Absolutely not! That's the level I believe we've gotten with identifying subgroups on some of these populations in order to get them listed.

Am I willing to bet our fisheries future on hatcheries? If I look at an example (albeit extreme) of the sockeye populations in Redfish Lake, and the countless millions of dollars we're spending of yours and my money to keep a captive brood going from an effective population size of less than 30, I think its wrong. I served on the initial recovey team and suggested that representative samples from similar sockeye populations (long migration, etc) be taken, stocked, and let the fish sort it out since drift had obviously altered the population genetic makeup beyond repair. I was never asked back? WHY? IMO, its because there is equal hunger for power that a listing gives. Yeessss, there's the reality. Antidevelopment forces have obviously misused ESA listings in this country for power grabs as much as industry. SAME OLD STORY. Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.

Bottom line for me, and many other scientists: each situation is unique and must be thoroughly examined on its own merits. Sometimes a "leave it alone" approach will be called for, sometimes a captive brood approach, sometimes a captured brood approach (note the difference), and sometimes a use of hatcheries to support a fishery.

The answer is always somewhere towards the middle.

Fishy-
You comments seem to indicate that you consider anadromous O. mikiss to be a different “species” than the resident form - interesting.

However more to the point regarding the chromosome numbers found in steelhead -

From - http://www.nwfsc.noaa.gov/publications/techmemos/tm19/hatch.html

“Chromosome karyotypes in steelhead and rainbow trout have also been extensively studied (see review in Thorgaard 1983). In a survey of steelhead from Alaska to central California, Thorgaard (1983) found that although chromosome numbers ranging from 58 to 64 were observed, a 58-chromosome karyotype was the most common in most samples. In contrast to results for studies of morphological and allozyme characters, Thorgaard did not find chromosomal differences between interior and coastal O. mykiss populations. All interior/redband trout populations had predominately 58 chromosomes, as did most coastal rainbow trout and steelhead populations.

The exceptions to the 58-chromosome pattern, however, provide insight into population genetic structuring in O. mykiss. Two geographic regions were characterized by steelhead with 59 or 60 chromosomes: the Puget Sound/Strait of Georgia region and the Rogue River/northern California region. However, the karyotypes of fish from these two regions were different; northern fish with 59 or 60 chromosomes had a different number of subtelocentric and acrocentric chromosomes than did southern fish (Thorgaard 1977). Farther south, winter steelhead in the Mad and Gualala Rivers from northern California and resident trout from the San Luis Rey River in southern California had 61-64 chromosomes (Thorgaard 1983).”

Tight lines
S malma

i guess a dog is a wolf and a wolf is a dog if a hatchery fish should be counted as an ESA fish....

...and then there is the question as to whether or not the samples drawn for the various studies were drawn from a large enough group to ensure that the data collected is truly representative of the population sets and subsets. Were they drawn from one years run cycle, two years, three years.....????

Add in to the mix data from the WDFW hatchery programs over the past 100 years and the blending of runs from different river basins because of a desire to get bigger fish or more eggs or earlier run timing and then add in that certain amount of straying that salmonids exhibit and one could ask if there is a truly unique population of "wild" fish or are the fish locally adapted "wild' fish.

We need to work towards the recovery of "wild" populations and we should continue to use our hatcheries for supplementation of existing runs. We also need to improve habitat conditions where economically and biologically feasible. There is no "silver bullet" and the answers are somewhere in the middle and they will involve many different techniques.

Fish are adaptable, maybe more so than some of the positions on both sides of the issue that get posted here. I think we need to work more towards basin management rather than continually cutting and splitting populations and issues to ever smaller groups. This kind of action leads to increasingly more complex regulations not to mention more money being spent on more studies and maybe even smaller splits in populations being "studied". We need to work within the appropriate arenas - ocean, Straits, Puget Sound and by expansion the Georgia Basin.

We know that we, as a species, are responsible for most of the freshwater/land problems. Can we solve them? Some yes, some no. Will we get back to the conditions of the 1850s? No, but we can try to improve runs and conditions where appropriate using the best available science.

Sport fishing is a $1 billion dollar economic motor in this state. We need to make sure our money is wisely spent.

that sounds pretty darn good! i like the way you think. that kind of talk people can understand. i wish more could do it as good as you just did

Fishyologist,

I'll deal with your last statement first as we agree. Each individual situation does merit considertion.

So, as I said before. We need more data before we use the once size fits all apporach of integrating hatchery and wild runs genetically speaking (that is the current approach favored by most politicians and industrialists right now).

I'm all for doing the experiment and finding out, but lets only do it in a river or two instead of every system in the state (at least until we have some sort of clue about what to expect). Just because previous hatchery reforms were often carried out with little forethought, doesn't mean we have to repeat the same mistakes over again.


As for the relationship of various techniques for determining genetic diversity and relatedness, we can get into that if you like, but I don't think it has much bearing on wheter or not the hatchery folks should blindly proceed down this path of genetic integration.

As for chromosome #s, what are you talking about? Now you're trying to tell me that only steelhead in the PNW count as steelhead. Give me a break. Anadromous or no, all O. mykiss are the same species.

Finally, you never answered. Do you support full scale integration of hatchery and wild runs ala the Bush administration's proposal?

As for the redfish lake thing. I don't know that much about it but I think I agree. 30 fish is probably not enough. Given the plasticity of salmonid genetics, I think introducing more fish may have been the way to go. However, without remedying the habitat problems that drove them to their current dire straights, I doubt that hatchery fish would fare much better (they still have to get over the dams).

People seem to forget that 10,000 years ago, all of the puget sound basin was under a mile of ice. All of our salmonids are threfore recently adapted to our very dynamic rivers. It is these continually changing environmental conditiouns that dictate what happens with fish genetic diversity. Think all this adaptation happend thousands of years ago? Think again, its goin on right now. Probably the biggest changes in the river systems in the PNW since the last ice age are the man made ones over the past 70 years. The fish are adapting. This is most obvious with the pink salmon, they are showing up in places they never were before. Look at the recent colonizaiton of the snohomish river with even year pinks and the new run of pinks in the green. The rivers are changing and the fish are responding. So far, it seems the pinks are the ones to benefit, from the changes we've made (clearly the chinooks have been hurt by these same changes).

Just my $0.02

Geoduck, smalma, et al,

Firstly, you ask if you are just being dense regarding the issues of inter- and intra-population genetic vaiation. You are. That's why I posted the actual references that would help you understand the concept.

As for chromosome numbers, your posts clearly summarize the issue (you forget that I helped count these!!). The fish with 61-64 chromosomes are RESIDENT fish from SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA and anadromous fish from the Gualala and Mad River systems (two rivers even more notorious for using hatchery stocks derived from anywhere, especially mid-CAL). There is little variation in number in the NW, and where there is it's because of migration. You guys are the ones that brought up the 2n numbers as an argument that these fish are so diverse, and I'm simply pointing out that the actual data doesn't support your argument.

--Bushbear: AMEN. Basin-wide management makes sense from phenotypic, genotypic, and common sense approaches. Enough of this splitting hairs.

Back to Geoduck. A test on only one or two rivers? I could pick two sets of rivers, where each approach would have very different results. As our discussion is leading us, you can't simply apply one approach to all systems.

The Glacial shield issue you bring up is indeed interesting. The glacial mass actually was thought to have separated the steelhead populations into two distinct groups. This is supported by all the evidence that we currently have discussed (genetic markers, chromosomes, etc). There are two major populations: an inland group comprising both anadromous and non-anadromous populations of the Columbia River east of the Cascade Crest and a coastal group extending from Alaska to California.

Lastly, as for the pink results you remark on, it is amazing isn't it? How does this happen, you ask? Migration, my friend, migration. The inherent, incessant trend of all anadromous salmonid stocks to stray from their natal streams in an effort to recolonize and or allow gene flow. So much for the genetic population stability/purity issue.

i am glad that body surf mentioned the dog and wolf. the genetically closest related dogs to wolves are not the malmute and the husky but the chihuahua and the beagle.

locusts science would have us re-introducing beagles to yellowstone to re-establish wolf stock

Fishyologist,

You were the one that brought up within population variation being greater than within species variation. Clearly this is not possible. It may be inconvienient for your arguement, but the california O. mykiss are the same species as PNW steelhead. If your going to make statements about a whole species, you need to include all the groups of that species.

Also, there is a big difference between being able to establish genetic relatedness and having a handle on genetic diversity.
Sure, with steelhead we have a pretty good handle on which strains are related to which.
Do we have any real idea about genetic diveristy in steelhead? No, we do not.

The most intensively studied organism in terms of genetic diveristy is man. There have been thousands of microsatellite markers (DNA fingerprinting uses these), and millions of single nucleotide polymorphisms (some conding, more non-coding) identified in humans. We have sequenced the entire human genome. Yet we still lack anything approaching a complete understanding of genetic diversity, let alone how most of this variation contributes to disease (the reason we are so interested, scientifically speaking).

Now, you tell me that with a handfull of allozymer markers and a few hundered (maybe?) microsatellite markers you have enough knowledge to tell us that you understand the genetic diveristy of steelhead.
Get real.

The steelhead genome is about 80% the size of the human genome and proably about as polymorphic. To have comparable genomic data you'd need to have info on a million SNPs or more.

There is a big differnce between knowing groups are related and understanding genetic diversity and the consequences of changes in genetic diversity. We have a long was to go before we understand all of this.

BTW, you never answered my question about your support of the total hatchery/wild integration program the Bush camp advocates?

Is this a tough one for you to answer or are you just dodging the question?

Now that we've cracked the door open on basin management, will we continue to be splitters or become lumpers....do we separate the coastal rivers from the Straits and the Straits from inner Puget Sound or should we consider the Greater Georgia Basin/Salish Sea as the grouping?

Lots of careers have been built on evermore closer looks at selected runs. I'm supportive of recovery projects by river basin and by using locally adapted stocks and even mixing in the odd stray that might show up in a hatchery. I don't want to slam the door on hatchery supplementation and become totally dependent on natural production.

I like to catch fish and I like to eat one every now and then. If the hatcheries are using local stocks and can successfully raise and release additional fish into the system - what is the problem? You can still have natural production, you can recover the locally adapted stock and maybe take it off one or more lists,

Hatcheries aren't the end all - be all, but they can provide a buffer for natural losses from floods, drought, and the 150 years of habitat manipulation we have been engaged in.

Good science, a program that looks at the entire picture, and common sense can allow us to know that future generations will have an opportunity to catch their own fish.