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....